Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1863-05-01


the ono State there are 100 carriages and In
the other 1000. A, in one State, would pay,
for his carriage So; but B, in another State,
would pay for bis carriage ESQ.," Again; III
any Slate had no carriages there could be no
spportionmsnt at ALL ;" 1t was argued, however,
that q tax on carriages might be apportioned
BY dc Gliding the gross sum to he raised and sp-
portioning it according to the census, laying
it in one State on carriages, In another on
horses, in q third on tobacco, and 30 on. Bnt
the court held that this would MT DO an ap-
Environment of the tax On carriages at all In
any proper sense.
The court decided urther-though not as a
judicial optnton-thas the diIec. taxes con-
templated by the Constitution are only two
viz: caphation poll taz, simply withcutrs-
gard to property, profession or any 0'hsr CIR
oun,tance; and tax on LAID.
Why tax on land should be distinguished
from tax on Carriages ia not very evident. The
objection to tbs latter was that in order to
appor,ionmsnt among the States it must fall
very une qually upon individuals. But this
reasoning applies with equal Weightto the tax
upon land in fact, probably, upon every other
object other than polls. And it makes no dit
ference whether the tax upon land be upon
tho number of acres, or upon the value Of the
land, since neither of these ia proportional to
representative population, and, therefore,
neither could be laid without q bearing very
UNEQUAL, if that furnishes the true rstio.
II tho effort be made to get clear Of the
constitutional difficulty by imposinga tai an
Kind upon its products, instead of tax upon
land, or the value Of land-it is impossible to
mako # more equal tnan the lsttsS<indssd,
impossible even to approximate as near to
equality.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court, by
which it includes taxes upon land among d.
reos taxes, is very unsatisfactory. Perhaps
the tue construction Of the clauseis as given
in tho following parsphrase mo capitation
tax, or other direct tax IF there be any other
direct tar capable Of apportionme"t,) shall be
laid, unlsas in proportion to the oeDaus." And
it may be further remarked that while the
decision SIS to carriages WAS properly elected
by the facts and pleadings-that as 10 tax
on land was only dictum-not being in
volysd in the case before the court. Indeed,
the more thoroughly one examines the prac
ticability of making any Just sppoztionmen''
the moro thoroughly will he be shut up to
the conviction that it is feasible by no Other
| nude than Ivy direct acquisitions upon the
States Persons accustomed to this method,
| seem o have passed the clause in question,
| with some confusion in their minds "A to its
practical operation.
The judicial decision properly settled only
this point, viz /: that the tax on csrrisgea was
indirect, and this principle, that 20 tax could
DO direct which WAS not capable Of sppo.tion-
| neut. This point and this principle wese m
| yal=ed in tns CAGE, and tho opinion IS 10 lsnd
was dictun, and so expressed to be by tie
court.
Wa have endeavored to show The dictum
erroneous, npon the principle actually and
| necessarily decided, since tho tax en- Land
| would not stand tho test Of capacity OF sp-
portionment.
The Confederate Congress- in the act 'n
posing war tax, passed in 1851, has solVHd
tho question, in conformity with the i6fe'
going views. That act takes the power fox
granted, and exercises it by an aa valoIen
tax upon land ss well as upon other proper
t.. Its terms are, "a war tax shall be a.
ssssed and Levied of fifty cents upon each one
hundred dollars in value of the following
property in the Confederate States, namely
real estate of all kinds, slaves, merchsndzs
bank stocks, railroad and other corporation
atocks, money at interest, &c., &c. No ap'
peal sg,ins: the constitutonnlity of this law
WAS taken By any ono of the millions affected
by it. :.
| Upon the whole, then: no must think 1t
too late now to raise the question OF eonstl-
trtional power, when the cotsmporaneous
construction of that instrument, within
five years after it's formation, was hZsd BY
both houses Of Congress, by George Wash
! ington, who presided over tho convention
which framed the Constitution, and who also
approved the act of 1874, and by the supreme
judicial tribunal of the country. Again,
| when tho Constitution, so construed, was
adopted, without an alteration affecting this
matter, by the Confederate States, tax &C
tually imposed by Congress upon this con-
struct;on, submitted 10 without a solitary
protest by people or State, and no appeal on
the subject carried to the judiciaries. And
| when, also, universal I'D valorem tax law
Ia practically free from every inequality the
Constitution intended to guard against, and
does the most substantial justice to all sec
tons interests and classes.
In regsrd ty the socond question raised
that Of apportionnsnt- ii, indeed, apportion-
ment be needed, and if human ingenuity can
find any species of tax other than capitatlen
capable Of standing the tests laid down BY
tho Supreme Oourt-it is to be remarked
That representatives, IS well as direct
tsxes, arc to be apportioned In the Same way.
Upon whatever basis representation has been
settled, on the same should taxation be. We
had a census taken in 1860 in conformity
with every rule which would guide one
taken to day, and no changes have occurred
since except Huch as are intermediate be-
tween all periods of census takicg. Upon
that b.si. we have already acted sa to- repre-
scntetion. The Constitution. providing for
certain States then in tho Confodefacy,
omitted to provide for the representation OF
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ken
lucky, Arkansas and Missouri-su Of which