About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 N. Davis & C. N. Potter, Income Tax: Remarks of Hons. N. Davis and C.N. Potter, in the House of Representatives, June 1 and 2, 1870 1 (1870)

handle is hein.tera/intxrmh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: INCOME TAX. REMARKS OF IONS. N. DAVIS ANB UN DOTTER, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT , 4JNY I AND 2, 1870. The House having under consideration the bill (HZ U. No. 2045) to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes- Mr. DAVIS said: Mr. SPEAKER: I desire to present to the House three reasons why the income tax ought not to be renewed. First, it was a war tax imposed for the pur- poses of the war, and borne by a patriotic peo- ple as one of the necessities of the war. It cannot be continued without a breach of good faith by a repudiation of the solemn pledge of Congress. When this tax was demanded by the impe- rious exigencies of the war, Congress in im- posing it gave a solemn pledge to the country that it should not be continued or renewed. The language of the act is: The taxes on incomes herein imposed shall be levied * * * * until and including the year 1870. and no longer. The people have borne the tax with patienee, relying upon the plighted faith of Congress. They had a just right to rely upon it; and it cannot be withdrawn without repudiation and badjlaith. It is in vain to say that the words no longer were not inserted with express intent to carry a promise to the tax-payers. They were unnecessary for any other purpose. They could have had no other object. They have never been understood in any other sense. If they had been omitted, the people would have had a right to expect a termination of the tax in 1870, but the insertion of the words no longer became an assurance in the most sol- emn form that their expectation should not be defeated. This view stands not only upon reason, but upon high authority. The phrase was borrowed from the English act increasing the income, or property tax as it is there called, in 1806. That act declared that the tax should continue until the 6th day of April next after the definitive signature of a treaty of peace, and no longer. In 1816, the first year of peace, the ministry attempted to continue this tax in a modified form. The effort was met by Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Baring, Mr. Brougham, and others, by argu- ments, the weight and tone of which should commend them to our chancellor of the ex- chequer. It was argued that the faith of Par- liament stood pledged to the country against the continuance of the tax in any form, however modified; that it was pledged to its removal and not to its continuance; and it was insisted, (I quote the language of Mr. Alison)- That a renewal of the tax, even at the reduced rate for a single year, is a direct breach of the public faith with the nation, which is little deserved after the patience with which the tax was borne during the years when it was really unavoidable. I adopt this argument and affirm the sound-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most