The New York Herald

Singular Conduct of Congress In the Matter of the Income Tax.
On the 24th of last month the Senate struck out of Mr. Sherman's Tax-Tariff bill the sections for continuing the income tax by the decisive vote of thirty-four yeas to twenty-three nays. The people in every section of the country rejoiced over the death of this inquisitorial, oppressive and corrupting tax. It was a war measure, and the country was glad to see it discontinued after peace had been restored five years. No one supposed, after such a vote, that the tax would be revived again or any further action upon it be taken. Mr. Sherman, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who had urged the continuance of the tax, admitted, in his remarks in the debate last Monday, "that he had no hope the vote of the Senate would be changed." He suggested to Mr. Howe and others who attempted to waive discussion on the subject "that the question had been decided." But on Friday the advocates of the income tax, under the lead of this same Senator Sherman, took what may be termed a snap judgment over the Senate and restored the tax. There was a great deal of parliamentary filibustering over the question, the majority voting yea at one time and nay at another. There never was a more singular instance of Congressional inconsistency and indecision.
No further amendments being offered to the Tax-Tariff bill, it was reported on Friday from the Committee of the Whole to the Senate, when the amendments were concurred in, except those upon which separate votes were asked. The first of these upon which a separate vote was asked was that striking out the income tax sections. Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved to continue the income tax for two years longer at two and a half per cent, instead of five per cent, as it now stands. This motion was negatived by twenty-eight nays to twenty-three yeas. Then the Senate voted upon the amendment of the Committee of the Whole striking out the income tax sections, when the vote stood yeas twenty-three, nays twenty-one. This was regarded as a finality. Mr. Sherman then made an argument against sweeping away so many taxes, and urged that the government could not get along unless some of those stricken off were retained. Thereupon Mr. Edmunds gave notice that he would move to reconsider the vote striking out the income tax sections. In the evening session Mr. Edmunds brought up his motion to reconsider. This led to some discussion, but finally the motion to reconsider prevailed. The yeas were twenty-six, nays twenty-five. Mr. Wilson then renewed his amendment to continue the tax for two years longer at two and a half per cent. After a lengthy discussion this amendment was agreed to-yeas twenty-seven, nays twenty-one. The question then being on striking out the sections imposing the income tax, as amended by Mr. Wilson, the Senate refused to strike them out, thus reversing its former action. The yeas were twenty-six, nays 22.
This shows that the Senate got into a curious muddle over this income tax question. It is not easy to understand all these parliamentary dodges and rules of action; but we suppose the income tax, as far as the vote of the Senate goes, is to be continued for two years longer, and at a rate of two and a half per cent. instead of five per cent.
The Senators favoring this unpopular and offensive tax took advantage evidently of a great many of their colleagues being absent to rush through their measure. The vote was a small one. There were some twenty-six Senators absent or not voting, and there were nine short of the number that voted on the 24th of June for abolishing the tax altogether. This conduct-this snap judgment and filibustering- on the part of Senators is discreditable to that body. Mr. Sherman himself must be surprised at the success of his management of this affair: for he declared only a few hours before that the question had been decided and that he had no hope the vote of the Senate abolishing the tax would be changed. However, the House of Representatives may still refuse to concur in the action of the Senate, and may let this abominable tax die a natural death. If the members have any regard for their popularity and the wishes of the people they will do so. They have only to notice the unanimous approval of the first action of the Senate in abolishing the tax by the press of all parties and shades of opinion, and the general gratification it gave to the public, to guide them in this matter. Mr. Sherman's pretence, that this tax is needed for the support of the government, is absurd. With all the taxes reduced or taken off by the Tax-Tariff bill there will be still an enormous surplus income. Even with the abolishment of the income tax as well the revenue would be quite large enough, or more than enough, for the current expenses of the government and for a good round sum to be applied to the liquidation of the debt. We hope the House will refuse to concur in the action of the Senate on the income tax.