administrative control. This gradually became known as the impôt global, or simply as the impôt sur le revenu. The third group was in favor of a stoppage-at-source income tax, divided into schedules, largely on the English model. This became known as the impôt cédulaire, or the impôt sur les revenus. These new names were finally accepted by all dispu

tants.

In March, 1894, the Minister of Finance, Burdeau, introduced an income-tax bill of the first kind, somewhat akin to that of Dauphin in 1887, in that it also rested, in part at least, on the legal presumption of income, as measured by house rent. After the failure of this scheme and of similar attempts emanating from the floor of the Chamber to effect a reform on the basis of a house-rentals tax, the discussion for a time narrowed down to a choice between the Prussian and the English systems. Moderates like Cochéry and Poincaré were in favor of the English system, or impôt sur les revenus; radicals like Cavaignac leaned to the Prussian system, or impôt sur le revenu. Many bills were introduced and reports of commissions made.

Among the bills of 1894 leaning toward the impôt global, or lump-sum tax, were those of Cavaignac and Doumer, of Rameau and of the socialists Jaurès and Millerand.1 On the other hand, the English stoppage-at-source scheme was favored by Réné Goblet. Finally Gendre took middle ground, and adopted what he considered the best elements of each.2 In the summer of 1894 discussion ensued, and the vote was taken. Jaurès' radical scheme was tabled by a large majority, Cavaignac's by a smaller one. Codet thereupon moved that the government be requested to frame some sort of an income-tax bill, and this important motion was adopted by a vote of 380 to 369. Pelletan furthermore moved that a parliamentary committee be appointed to study the whole problem and to bring in a report. In the meantime, on the motion of Minister Poincaré, an extra-parliamentary commission had

1 See Philippe, pp. 196–201.

2 For Goblet, see Gaston-Gros, p. 523; and Philippe, pp. 191-196.

been constituted in June by the President of the Republic. This was perhaps the most interesting event of the period, and deserves fuller mention.

§ 6. From the Extra-parliamentary Commission to the End of the Century, 1894-1899

The extra-parliamentary commission of 1894 was formed primarily to consider the projects of Goblet, mentioned above, and of Pierre Merlou, to whose views allusion has been made several times. The commission was invited, however, to consider the whole problem. Its membership was composed of the most eminent economists, financiers, legislators and officials. In order to provide a basis for their deliberations, the Minister of Finance caused to be collected a great compilation of documents,1 illustrating the systems of income taxation in force throughout the world. The committee deliberated for a whole year and made its report in the summer of 1895, publishing the testimony in full, as well as the report, which was written by Coste.2

The report was an exceedingly thorough discussion of the whole problem, but it suffered from several weaknesses. From the very beginning of their deliberations it was seen, as Coste himself tells us, that they were concerned primarily with the effort to avoid two dangers- a declaration which

1 L'Impôt sur le Revenu et l'Impôt sur les Revenus dans les Pays Étrangers. Notes réunies par la Direction Générale des Contributions Directes. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1894, 915 pp. This compilation not only contains the full text (in French translation) of every income-tax law in force at the time, but also comprises summaries, explanatory descriptions, and statistics. It is by all odds the fullest document of the kind in existence.

2 The testimony was published in two huge volumes, under the title of Commission Extraparlementaire de l'Impôt sur les Revenus institutée au Ministère des Finances. (Décret du 16 Juin, 1894.) Procès-Verbaux. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1895, 2 vols. The report of Coste was also published separately under the title, Rapport Général présenté au nom de la Commission Extraparlementaire de l'Impôt sur les Revenus. Par M. Adolphe Coste. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1895. The resolutions of the Commission will be found in Gaston-Gros, Appendix iii, pp. 531-536, and the report itself is discussed, ibid., pp. 424–431.

might engender fraud, and an official control which might degenerate into inquisition. This attitude is well represented by Senator Trarieux, one of the more important members of the commission, who disclosed a heated opposition to the lump-sum method, maintaining its incontestable inferiority to the English system from the point of view of the liberty of the taxpayer, of the certainty of yield, and of justice and social peace. The report itself, in referring to the Prussian system, says: "It is difficult to imagine that we should ever be reduced to submitting ourselves to so formal an administrative discipline: in comparison with such a system, our old régime of direct taxes, all of them so easy-going and routinelike, would seem like a fiscal oasis."1 The commission, however, was not especially favorable to the English system, and drew up a scheme which was a curious mixture of the stoppage-at-source and the presumption systems, divided into schedules indeed, but virtually retaining the land tax and the house tax, and making only slight changes in the other existing direct taxes. The report had an imposing appearance on paper, but on closer inspection it turned out to be really the old system in a somewhat new dress. As one of its critics said of the commission: "In the soul of these economists, statistics had dried up their enthusiasm; they fulfilled their task conscientiously, but without the faith which triumphs over obstacles; their scepticism froze them. Philosophers around a green table, they almost all lacked that stimulus which enlivens parliamentary debates the identity of personal and general interest; scholars accustomed to universal criticism, they criticised their own opinions; theorists of doubt, they doubted their own judgment; the desire to be circumspect made them timorous; the fear of something new paralyzed them; what they lacked was precisely that which

1 "Il est difficile de concevoir que nous parvenions jamais à nous plier à une discipline administrative aussi formaliste; et en comparaison d'un tel système, nôtre vieux régime de contributions directes, indolentes et routinières, nous apparaftrait comme une oasis financière. Rapport Général présenté au nom de la Commission Extraparlementaire de l'Impôt sur les Revenus. Par M. Adolphe Coste. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1895.

"'1

they most despised - - politics.' Ribot, who had become Minister of Finance when their report was submitted, pronounced what is no doubt the correct verdict: "Such a conception as theirs," said he, "is evidently inspired by an idea of justice; but we must judge a reform by results rather than by intentions. From this point of view we do not think that the putting into practice of the system elaborated by the extra-parliamentary commission would respond to the hopes engendered by the promises of a general tax reform."2

At about the same time as the report of the extra-parliamentary commission, the parliamentary committee referred to above, which had also been at work for a year, made its report, written by Cavaignac. This report came out strongly in favor of a progressive lump-sum tax.3 Cavaignac's project, however, was opposed by Cochéry, as well as by Ribot, and was tabled by a rather close vote. Ribot then decided to try his luck and introduced, in October, 1895, a scheme which in reality did not differ greatly from that of one of his predecessors, Burdeau. Ribot's Exposé des Motifs contains an interesting discussion of the three different types of

1 "Dans l'âme de ces économistes, la statistique avait dessêché l'enthousiasme ; ils remplirent leur tâche en conscience, mais sans le foi qui triomphe des obstacles; leur scepticisme les giaça. Philosophes réunis autour d'un tapis vert, presque tous manquèrent de ce stimulant qui vivifie les débats parlémentaires: l'identité de l'interêt personnel et de l'interêt général; savants habitués à la critique universelle, ils critiquèrent leurs propres opinions; théoriciens du doute, ils doutèrent de leur propre jugement; le désir de circonspection les rendit timores; la crainte de l'aventure les immobilisa. Ce qui leur fit le plus defaut fut ce qu'ils méprisaient le plus: la politique." — Gaston-Gros, p. 424.

2 "Une pareille conception s'inspire évidemment d'une idée de justice; mais c'est d'après ses résultats, bien plus que d'après l'intention qui l'a inspirée, qu'une réforme doft être jugée, et à ce point de vue nous ne pensons pas que la mise en pratique du système élaboré par la commission extraparlementaire répondrait aux espérances qu'ont fait naftre les promesses de réforme générale de l'impôt."— Projet de Loi portant Suppression de la Contribution des Portes et Fenêtres et Transformation de la Contribution Personnelle-Mobilière. Chambre des Députés, Session Extraordinaire de 1895, no. 1560. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1895, 53 pp. See pp. 3-4.

3 For a description of this report, see Philippe, pp. 241-244; Gaston-Gros, pp. 523-524; and Renoult, p. 59.

income tax, as well as a treatment of the question whether a new income tax should be added to, or should be a substitute for, the existing taxes (impôt de superposition, as compared with impôt de remplacement). The single income tax he characterized as an entirely unrealizable conception in a great modern state. A stoppage-at-source or schedule tax he opposed because he maintained that under it public charges could not be distributed with the justice that modern democratic society demands. The lump-sum income tax he considered impracticable because "perfect fiscal honesty is an exceptional virtue." Accordingly he based his project largely on a modification of the contribution personnelle-mobilière, which he characterized as the true French form of the tax on income.1 Ribot's scheme, however, met with scant favor from Parliament, and the deputies, after the long vacation in which they had a chance to consult the temper of their constituents, incontinently voted it down and thus brought about the resignation of Ribot.

The new Minister of Finance, Doumer, was enthusiastically greeted when in February, 1896, he introduced his bill for a general lump-sum income tax, embodying both progression and differentiation. His exposé des motifs is a long, wellconsidered treatise on the topic. The project was referred to the budget commission presided over by Cochéry. The valuable and interesting report, however, was written by Delombre, and proved to be adverse to the scheme. The

1 Projet de loi, etc. [for full title see supra, p. 303]. Cf. esp. pp. 3, 4, 5, and 15. 2 Projet de Loi relatif aux Contributions Directes et aux Taxes y assimilées de l'Excice, 1897. L'Impôt sur le Revenu. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1896. A comparative study of five projects, those of the extra-parliamentary commission, of Ribot in 1895, of Doumer in 1896, of Maujan in 1903, and of Rouvier in 1903, will be found in P. Duclos, L'Impôt sur le Revenu. Paris, 1904, pp. 174-254.

3 Rapport au nom de la Commission du Budget chargée d'examiner le Projet de Loi portant Fixation du Budget Général des Dépenses et des Recettes de l'Excice, 1897. (L'Impôt sur le Revenu.) Par M. Paul Delombre. Chambre des Députés, Session de 1896, no. 1831, p. 64. This report of Delombre contains at the close a full list of all the income-tax projects which had been presented up to date.