Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1852-06-09


inc taxed. their issues should not.
Though lerieographers may define, and
so far as the original import and common
aeceptation of the term is concerned, pro-
nerly define income to be " the produce
of farm" yet the term income having
in legal language conventional siSnin-
cation, it by no means follows that tax
upon agricultural productions is an income
tax, or tax upon income.
Income. in contemplation Flaw, is IN
corpOreQl, and not visible, tangible sub
iect which may be always seen, and al
ways handled. " 1t is not the thing cor
porate itself. which may consist in lands,
houses, Jewels, or the like but something
collateral thereto, as rent issuing out OF
those lands or houses - and upon which
an adj vQlore,n tax could not be made to
operate. The Jewish tithes, subsequent
Ily adopted by the British government as
a mode of raising revenue for the support
of Church and State, was species OF in
come tax. And Sir William Blackstone
in his commentaries defines tithes to be
the tenth part of the increase yearly arr
sing and renewing from the profits of land
the stock upon lands, and the personal
industry of the inhabitant And the same
distinguished author Classics tithes with
incorporate Entertainments, because "that
casual share of the annual increase is not,
till severed, capable of being shown to the
eye, nor of being delivered into bodily
possession" The Jewish theocracy not
only demanded the tenth part of whatever
might be on hand at any particular period
of the year. but claimed the tenth part of
the annual productions of the soil and the
tenth part Of the annual increase of the
flock. And an income tax is not only a
tax upon such agricultural productions as
may be on hand at the time of the levy,
but tax upon the entire agricultural pro-
auctions of the year. Income is incorpo-
real, "existing merely in idea and alb
stracted contemplation" and not capable
of being taxed al valoreDs but agricultu-
raj productions, severed from the SOIL and
lodged in the barn and capable of being
seen, felt and handled, at the time of the
assessment, are corporal substances of
appreciable value and can be made sub
ject to an ad valorem system of taxation.
When, therefore, we levy a tax upon ag-
ricultural productions in ease, at the time
of the assessment, it is not an income tax
but an ad valorem tax levied upon present
existing value.
The customs and usagcs of those gov
ernments that have collected revenue from
this mode oftaxation have, in my opinion,
settled, beyond controversy or cavil, the
scope and bearing of an income tax; and,
as have indicated, have given to that
term a quasi technical Specification and
in this sense l suppose it was used in the
Constitution.
1 am not we'll advised, but am disposed
to think, that the English government was
the first to levy an income tax. We are
told that it is of modern origin, and has
been called by different names. 1t was
first called a tax on income on the profits
of property. In the reign of George III,
levy of the same character was made,
and denominated " contribution on the
profits ofproperty." But under whatever
name, whenever, or wherever an income
tax has been levied upon examination it
will be found to have been tax upon the
annual income or annual profits of pro-
pcrty, whether at the time of the assess
ment the products were IN eSse, or were
consumed or destroyed. An income tax
comprehends and operates upon the pro-
ductions of the fiscal year, and not part
of these productions. And, accordingly,
the act of George III, to which have re-
ferrcd, directed that the amounts of the
levy should be estimated from an average
of the crops on profits for the preceding
three years. While, therefore, it might
not be competent for the General Assem-
bly, to levy an income tax upon the far
mer, a tax upon his entire annual crop,
whether it was in existence at the time of
the assessment in the form of tobacco or
live stock, had been consumed or de-
stroyed, or had changed its form in the
hands of the producer; yet it might, and
think, would be, for us to levy a tax
upon corn, wheat, tobacco or live stock
IN eSSe at the time Of the assessment. In
the one instance, it would be tax upon
an incorPOreaI subject and in the other,
1T would be tax upon present existing
corporeal substance of value in the hands
of the tax payer, and worth to him in mo-
ney whatever it might bring, if exposed
to sale. Suppose the corn or tobacco had
been sold before the Commissioner of the
revenue called, and its value held in mo-
ney by the producer, then all will agree,
and this bill provides, that it shall be tax
ed, and, in doing SO, apPrehend no vio
lcnce will be done the Constitution. What
eyer We, as legislators, may place upon
the statute books of the State, subject to
repeal or modification by our SUCCESSORS,
it is not to be supposed that the late Con-
vention intended to incorporate in the or
ganic law of the State, provision by
which the collection of revenue, for the
support of government, would be made
dependent upon the whim or caprice of
the holders Of property. And regardless
of what we may do, it is not to be suppo-
sed, that the members of that body, with
al Akn;,. oAl,.,,. 49, al rhnrL