Mr. HALE. I renew it. A point has been made in favor of a discrimination between in comes up to $5,000 or $10,000, and incomes in excess of one or the other of those sums by a reference to the exemptions of incomes under $1,000; and it has been strenuously contended by the Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. Faust1] by the Gentfrom Maine, [Mr. PIKE] and by other gentlemen, that the fact that incomes up to $1.000 are exempt from all tax is of itself a recognition of the principle that discriminations may be made accordin to the amount of the income of the party.With all deference to the chairman of the ComWays&Means, who has given his reason for that exexcept to exempt incomes up to $1,000. emption up to the amount of $1,000, it strikes me that he has failed to give the true reason for it, and the one which removes it entirely from the line of argument which these gentlemen have adopted. I apprehend that the reason why incomes up to the amount of 5600 under the present law, and $1,000 under the proposed law, are exempt from tax is not that the possessors of small incomes are unable to pay a tax, but that the law intended that the average amount understood to be necessa for the support of a family should not be taxedy. It was understood, 2 or 3 years ago, that $600 was probably the average of the expense for the support of a family; now it is considered that 81,000 is probably that average; and it is proposed to exempt that amount, not as a discrimination in favor of the poor man as against the rich man, but as the average expense of the support of a family to every man throughout the country; in other words, it is not a discrimination; it up ilies equally to every man; it is only incomes a ove that amount of average expenses that are subject to taxation. Now, I put it to this committee whether there is on principle any sound reason whatever why a man possessing an income of $100,000, if you please, should pay more than his ratio, his %age on that income, more than the man with an income of $5,000 pays? Sir, I do not believe it isequal or just. We have the power to do it, as weqhave the power to go further and say that if a man has an income of over $5,000 the country shall take the whole. I do not know why it might notns well be done in that form as in the form proposed by the Gentfrom Illinois, who runs the tax up by 100s and 1,000s, increasing the rude until you get up to 25%. I ask the gentleman, why does he not say that when a mans income exceeds $80,000 he shall pay 50%., when it exceeds $100,000 is shall ay 100%., and when it exccc 5 $200,000 he shall pay 200%.? It does seem to me that the principle upon which these taxes have always been assessed has been upon a principle of equality. In Our local taxation, our State taxation, we do not say that a man who holds real estate or personal property beyond a certain amount shall ay a greater %age upon his property than the man who holds a less amount. I submit that however gentlemen may treat this argument it. simply results in the proposition that the rich men being in the minority shall have injustice done to them. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment. The pending question was upon the amendment of Mr. SPALniNe.