The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-09

absolutely necessary" for executing their inspec-
ton laws. (Cons u s., art l, sec. w.
1T WOULD OVERTHROW THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
II the doctrine which the income tax Is founded
is correct; If the United States, being prohibited
from laying an unapportioned tax on land, can lay
lag, the States, which are prohibited from taxing
Imports and exports may lay TIA, Tax ; 0a any
and exports. The importance, the necessity
OF guarding against such subtle distinctions, existing
fion was apparent to Chief Justice Marshall, when
the subject first came judically before him 10 MS
comprehensive sagacious farseeing Mint IL was
ment depended upon Overruing these unsuDstantlai
technical distinctions. In speaking Of the attempt
to evade the prohibition TO States OF the r'ght 10 lax
imports, by nominally taxing the occupation Of an
importer, he sad:"lt is impossible TO conceal from
ing the substance. 1t is treating prohibition which
Is general as Ii it were confined TO the particular
mode Of doing the forbidden sh my " Mea,U Us
perceive that tax on the SAFE OF an arucie
imported only for sale Is tax OH the article ltse
tax by evasion was made by the State Of Maryland
Tho United States Bank, by authority Of s charter
derived from the general government, established q
branch bank In Mary land. or course the state could
not tax this branch otherwise IL might tax II out OF
existence, and destroy, or seriously impair wena
to borrow money. The State tried to evade the pro-
hibition by imposing the tax on the bulls OF the
branch bank The Supreme Court decided that the
tax the bills was substantially the same thing as
tax on the bank. Chief Justice Marshall, with
ton involved principle vital to the nation. Lie
said:-
If apply the principle for which the State Of Mary
capable Of changing totally character Of that instrument
hs American their Constitution and =.
laws made In thereof to be supreme; but this
as MSSa .sss as A' to the
The State Of Maryland could have carried out the
principle for which contended just as mischieyousy
and just as destructively to the national credit and
taxing the bills OF the banks and II the income is
constitutional this could have been done.
THE INCOME TAX THE FIRST FORM OF multiplication.
Not only have other and similar shallow distinc-
lions been tried in tile name and style OF levying
tax for the purpose OF evadng the law but the precise
one adopted by Congress in laying the income tax
is not new It was Tie form which nullilcation first
assumed in the city of Chareson-itsh Otbed. II the
principle Of the income tax had been acquesced IN
by the supreme Court at that time there would have
been no occasion even for States that wished sepa-
ration to resort to rebellion. They could have eX-
ritory without ever firing gun. And II the prin-
ciple which was rejected there is to be adopted
war have been spent for naught. We have a ju-
dica decision OF the question us 1t arose at tna time
up TINS Way1i tS Cy Ger1e
from the State Of South Carolina passed an Ordi.
nance which is thus described by Judge Johnson, OF
the Supreme COurt:-''l It's true the act OF the city
OF Charleston which imposes this tax Is most clunsiy
worded. But think it clear thai, taken together,
the object is to impose income TAX" And thus
by his associate on the bench, Judge Thompson-'
III is a tax upon the net income Of interest upon
and seven per centum Stock OF the United States or
other obligations on which interest has been re-
ceyed ,,o 1t is, therefore general tax
Chief Justice Marshall and majority of
the court held that this taxing. Of the
method ''Of taxing and opposing the power Of the
government TO borrow money" The Supreme Court,
In this case, decided that when State was pro-
hibited from laying a tax United States stock it
could not evade the prohibition by laying the tax on
same court have decided g D. I'M that the general
government is prohibited from laying an unappor-
toned tax on land; and 1t would seem to follow that
the income OF land ana OF other property, as Is
attempted by the present income tax.
IT WOULD MAKE STATES SUPREME.
III the United States could evade the decision OF the
land, which is prohibited If laid on land, then the
States which prohibited from taxing imports, and
exports and United States securities and Offices
der the general government, might evade the prohi
could tax them for their own use one per cent they
could tax them one hundred per cent. Says Chief
Justice Marshall, IN the case already referred to u
Peters. 449):-
If the right to impose the tax exists, right which, in
IT'S nov no Limits may be carried any
II which the w e each SsD and an
exercised The most critical periods FOR the most important
perhaps the whole may %a
s % BY any OF the organ
And in another case Chief Justice Marshall says
alt is obvious that the same power which imposes
light duty can impose very heavy one--one which
amounts to prohibition. If 1t is to be eXcr
c'sed at ALL it must be exercised at the will OF those
in whose hands 1t is placed" 2 Wheaton, 1861 That
1.-THE power to tax involves the power to Destroy"
Judge Marshall places among propositions not to
be Denied" "A Wheaton, 3l6.) SO says Daniel Web
ster =" power of taxation, without fixed limits
and without guards is power to embarrass power
to Cypress, power to expel, power 10 Destroy"
STATES COULD ExPEL THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
fft hn Gtnfn arsv,t 70 fnV Initnx
securities by imposing tax OF hundred per cent
on the income derived from them-and II the income
such securities be worth in any rcbeIlious Slater
Just as much as the bonds Of the Southern Confed
eracy are worth to-day, and no more. Chief Justice
Marshall, speaking OF the proposed tax on the i'll
como OF United states stock, said:-"lt is a burden
The operations OF government 1t may be carried
e +. 4.o) Officers of customs patriotic; but il IL
the oil OF fat salaries which Keeps the flame OF
State levy tax OF one hundred per cent
the income OF these officers, and would there be
such strife as there now Is for the privilege Of
establish a distinction between the right TO tax a
thing and the right to tax its income-a distinction
credit and the power Of the general government at
the mercy OF the separate Slates' Any disalected
comes derived from onces under the general
government within its own limits, upon In
comes derived from imports and from exports.
amounting, II need be, to the sum total OF
such incomes, could virtually expcl the general gov
eminent from its territory and substantially accom-
plish all the injury which would attend Its formal
withdrawal from the Union. South Carolina In the
time Of nullifcatIon wished to throw open the port
OF Charleston to the free importation OF goods. She
wanted to escape the tarn but knowing That she did
not possess sufficient military and naval force TO
keep the port Of Charleston open she prudenty de-
sisted. II the distinction between taxing a thing
and taxing its income, now attempted by Con-
gress in the income tax, Is law, how
easily, by q tax Of one hundred per cent
on the incomes OF all United states officers,
could she have banshed these troublesome re-
representatives. OF the general government from her
borders, and the very odor Of the tariff with them.
or suppose she had sad II she could not have goods
free she would not have them at all. In addition TO
the tax upon the incomes Of Offices she would only
have had to impose tax OF one hundred per cent
on all incomes derived from imports and all incomes
derived from exports to establish the most COM
r,leta blockade ln1aUin lble. Erpcf tho urncinlo