Mr. PAINE. I renew the amendment. The chairman of the ComWays&Means has renouncedtheproposednmendmeatbefore the lHouse discriminating in favor of incomes below $1,000 and against those above that amount to be unjust and wrong. I am sorry. If that be robbery, he has come into this House with his garments stained all over with rob ber. I takeit he does not disapprove the bill be imselfintroduced. I take it he approves that provision which requires aman worth $51, 001 a year to paya tax of 5%. perannum and yet exempts his neighbor who may only be worth $009 from the payment of any tax whatever. If this be robbery to make it 10%. above a certain amount, what will be said of that discrimination which compels a man to pay a tax when his income is over $1,000 and relieves him fromtaxation entircly when below that amount? But there is no robbery in either case. If the gentleman desires to put himself right on the record, let him wi )e out what he has already written in this bil. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to read to the committee a few arngraphs from alittle workReport of the U.S. Revenue commission which I presume is the rude mccum of the ComWays&Means. Let me read from page 17: “The fomofiy.ill0foroll! for the difficulties above pointed out and illustrated snvo in nfewstrikintz instances.which have probably resulted from oversight. in the framing of the law. must.in the opinion of the commission, be sought for in such nrevision of the internalrevenuo system aswill look to an entire exemptionotthe tnsnufacturimr industryof the U.S. from all ircct tuxutiou. (distilled and fur mented liquors. tobacco and possibly a few othtr articles excepted.) This the commission nro unhesi tatinely preparedto recommend." Then let me read from the bottom of the same page: " Assuming, then. that the policy indicated which we may burn rostate in brief to be the abolition or speedy reduction of all taxes which tend to cltcek development, and the retention of all those which, like theincometax, fallobiofly upon realized wealth that.lliv liaeoepmd as the desirablefuture revenue policy of t a country. the question next arises in what innuner and to what extent can it becarried out, and at the same time insure to the Governmenta revenue adequate to its necessities? Now turn to page 27 of the some report: "lawman In respectto the income tax the commision hayonot from want of time. Been able to give thissubJcet the attention which its importance demands. Although in many respects an obnoxious tux, yet falling as it (lpos mainly on accumulation. it will probably be sustainedwith less detriment to the country than any other form of taxation, the excise; on spirituous and fermented liquors and tobacco excepted. The discrimination at presentin the rate levied on incomes under and in excess of $5,000is, however. unJust. being in fact a tax on the results of successful industry and business enterprise; and the commission recommendthat this discrimination be abrogated and the rate be equalized at 5%. You must not tax industry, but must tax the results of industry; and then further on they say you must not tax realized wealth. It is impossible to frame a tax bill from such contradictory recommendations as these. [Here the hammer fell.]