Mr. PIKE. I move to amend by striking out all after the words “ U.S. ” in line 2466 down to the end of line 2475, and to insert inlieu thereof the following: Or of any citizen of the U.S. residing abreadwhether derived from any kind of property. rents, i nterest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade employment or vocation carried on in the U.S or elsewhere or from any other sourcewhatever.a duty of 5% on the amount so derived over $1.000 and not exceeding 85000 exceeding a duty of ten %. on the amount and a the duty shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits and uncome of every business.trade or profession carried on in the U.S. by persons residing without the U.S and not citizens thereof. This is a matter of considerable importance. The chairman of the committee states that the change proposed in this bill lessens the revenue $17,000,000. The amendment proposes an exemption of incomes up to $1,000; otherwise it is a reenactment of the old law. The question arises as to the propriety of assessing an income tax of 5%. on one amount, and a tllx of 10%. on a larger income. Of course it is on y upon the net income, and am): of 10%. upon net. income is not hjglier than many other rates iui osed in this bill. Now, if we give away byt is in the bill as it stands 17 miplri oovnissioonf revenue, we must look elsewhere to suppl the deficiency. If we retain the 17 millions of tax we may relieve many small and weak manufacturers of the country. Every laboring man in the country pays a tax upon what he eats, drinks, and wears and until we come to the point of relieving the great body of people in the country from onerous taxes upon everyday 5 consumption it is a question whether or notthe men who are able to a should not [my this increased proportion o t. eir income to the General Government. I have examined the English law from which this income tax is derived, and I find that for several years the system in that country was 10%. on large incomes, 7 and a hall on more moderate income, and 5 person the smaller, not divided precisely as Wedivide them, but by different kinds of property. They have always pursued the system of apportioning taxes upon property and income. upon e instance a specific tax was laid on those who kept servants, commencing with one pound On one servant and increasing until the men Who had 11 servants paid 6 pounds on each, thus recognizing the principle that the man of larger means should pay an increased tax in proportion to his means. That is a principle recognized by the bill of the ComWays&Means when they exempt men of moderate income, up to $1,000, from taxation altogether and it is carrying out the same idea when you have apportioned this from 5 to 10%. The principle is also recognized in the taxation O gas companies, where the tax ranges from 5 cents on 1,000 feet to ten, 15, and 25%., in proportion to the amount produced. It is a fair principle of taxation and one that sound political economy should recognize, because the aim always should be to lay taxes on that portion of the community that can most easily at them. I do not know that I am personallyinterested l in the matter, but the great mass of those who are particularly interested I know would very cheerfully pay this additional sum, for I have not yet heard of any remonstrance from any gentleman whose tax is more than 5%. according to the existing law. No one of this class has ever sent a request to this Congress to be relieved from taxation, and if we wait until that patriotic class of men shall ask to be relieved from their burden, l apprehend we will have to wait a great while. On the other hand. we do have petitions from struggling manufacturers coming to us from all quarters of the land, askin for relief. Now, we all desire to relieve all the recesses by which wealth is created. We all desire to relieve, as much as possible, the labor of the country from taxation, because by doing so we produce the best general result. this for this reason that I hope the House will follow the English example, and for a few years to come retain this tax of 10%. [Here the hammer fell.]