Mr. SPALDING. I will do so. I move to amend by inserting after the word “ dollars, ” in line 2468, the following: and not more than $6,000;and on the excess over and above $6.000.adnty of throopor cent. peran num additional., I must confess, sir, that I do not understand the chairman of the ComWays&Means when he says that a tax of this charae tor is not in accordance with the principles of justice, and further, that it is “highway rob, bervf categories. When we lay a general tax of live%. upon every mans income over the sum of $1.000, does not that take within its purview every man in the community subject to taxation? Then upon that annual revenue up to 50,000. as my amendment. proposes, a tax oflive% is to be paid not by one man. but by every man in the community hav tag that amount of income. The assessment is equal. The amendment further provide for an additional assessment of 3%. upon the amount of income over $6,000. Is not thisjust? Is it robbery? Why, sir, we adopted the other day a provision imposing a tax upon wooden bowls and upon corn brooms. We are prepared, too, it seems, to tax the brave soldiers who fought our battles during the last 5 years in every case where the amount of income is over $1,000; but we are not prepared to say that gentlemen who have incomes of $100,000 a year shall be taxed over and above the rate which we assess upon the income of the man of very moderate means. Now, as I have said time and again upon this floor, the tax isequal while the means of payment are unequal. The man who has the higherineome has the greater means of payment and feels the tax less. The difference is in his favor. The poor man, to the extent of his modicum, pays his full tax. If he had a larger income he would of course be ha pyto pay the increased tax. Not so with the millionaires. They fix upon a mod erate income of $5,000, and say, “ Here we take our stand and set the tux gatherer at defi ance, because it would be inequality, it would be injustice, it would be highwa robbery to make us pay from our overflowmg cotfersa trifle upon the excess above what is required to meet the necessary demands of life.” Why, sir, I cannot see upon what ground, in morals Or in ethics or in l ic, the argument of my learned friendfrom ermout has a resting placc. There is nothing in it in reason, nothing in it injustice. An Itrustthatthe reflecting men upon this floor will ponder well before they can be induced to change the very equi table mode of assessment which we adopted here 2 years ago, and which did make some difference between the rich man and the man of moderate means.