Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-01-27
rhe Constftasfonalisy of the In.
come Tax.

The C0nsiftntfonalfty of the I'm.
come Tax.
A suit involving the constitutionality OF
the Income Tax law Is pending IN the Su-
preme Court of Illinois, and will come to
hearing during the present January tern
at Springfield. We find the facts thus
stated in an exchange.
VIM. M. SPRINGER, of the law firm OF
McCLERNARD, BRoADwELL & SPRINGER, OF
Springfield, is plaintiff in error in the case
He declined to pay the tax assessed by the
United States Assessor upon his "fncomt'
gains and profits in 1866. A warrantlwas
levied upon his real estate in Springfield by
the U. S. Collector, and the property soil
at auction for cash. There being no othe'
bidder, the Collector purchased the prop
erty for the United States for sum ex
ceeding $4,000, being the amount of tax
penalty and costs, and executed a deed
therefor to the United States, depositins
the deed with the q. s.. District Attorney
MIR. SPRINGER, who refused to pay tn,
tax on the ground of the unconstitution
ality OF the law, by authority Of whic.
1t was levied, filed bill in chancery in til,
Sangamon County Circuit Court, prayin,
that the District Attorney be ordered t.
bring the deed into court for cancellation
and that it be cancelled. The bill was de
INJURED to, the demurrer sustained, and the
bill dismissed. The plaintiff sued out {:
writ of error in the Supreme Court, where
as we have stated. iJ is docketed for a hear
ing at the present term. The points mad
by the plaintiff in error are, that the tar
which is levied on his income gains and
profits, is direct td1. This point is very
copiously illustrated in the brief Of tn
plaintiffs attorneys, by quotations frou
standard writers on political economy
English and American, in which the dis
tinction between direct and indirect taxes
is clearly drawn, and the tax upon in
come gains and profits shown to be a 'sdi
rect tax" That is, it is tax which fall
wholly on the payer. JOHN STUART MILL s
definition is given: "Taxes are either di-
rect or indirect. A direct tax is one which
is demanded from the very person who it il
intendetlor desired should pay it. Indirect
taxes are those which are demanded from
one person in the expectation and intention
that he shall indemnify himself at the ex-
pense of another-such as, excise or GUS
TOMS" Judge THEODORE SEDGwICK, of Mas
sachusetts, ELLIorr's Debates on the Con-
stitution, and the United States Commits
sioner of Internal Revenue, are quoted to
the effect that an income tax is direct tax.
The next point in the brief is the provis-
ions of the Constitution of the United
States concerning taxes. a..
2 Art. 1, Sec: q provides that: rtgr ae
Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the & several States
which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective numbers, etc.
Art. ], Sec. 8, provides:
Congress shall have power to levy and
collect taxes, duties, impOsts and excuses.
to pay the debts and provide tor the COM
mon defense and general welfare of the
United States; but all duties, imposts and
excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States. s-r---,
Art. / /, Sec. 8, provides:
No capitation. or other direct tax, shall
be laid, unless in proportion to the census
or enumeration hereinbefvre directed to be
taken. = ~ -'-'1 4s4 - %y-
= It is then assumed by the plaintiff, in
view of these Constitutional provisions
that direct tares are expressly. prohibited
except on the following conditions .1st
Representation in Congress. 81. Popula.
ton or plumbers as the basis of such taxes
81. Apportionment of dir. ct taxes rela-
lively among the States, according to the
population of each. Without the concur
renee of these conditions, direct taxes
would be unlawful under the Constitution
| It is next assumed that none of these
conditions concur to give validity to tn,
acts of Congress authorizing the income
tax. For, 1st. Eleven States were unrepre'
sented in Congress when those acts were
passed, and, excepting one, have continued
to be unrepresented therein, either volun'
tarily or through Federal constraint.
I'd. The income tax is not based ever
|proressedly upon population. asso>s ~
Sd. 1t issnot even professedly apportion-
ed relatively among the States according te
the population of each. For example, il
is stated that the State of Illinois. having
IA Representatives in Congress, paid, dur
ing the year 1866, from incomes $3,46S 740..
35. ? The 15 Southern States, having "a
Representatives, paid only $6026,535 55
during the same time. Illinois should
haye as Representatives in Congress, i
this proportion of direct taxes were cor
rect.
It is then assumed that the necessary
mode of arriving at constitutional appor
tionment of direct taxes is by taking the
aggregate population in all the States, and
then ascertain the relative proportion o
the population of each State to the popula
tion of the whole, and apportion the sun
required accordingly among the several
States. .res ~ i=1 f1s af
In view of the foregoing points the plain.
tiff concludes that the income tax in ques-
tion, being a. direct tax, and not having
been apportioned among the several States,
is levied in violation of the Federal Consti-
tuition, and the acts of Congress imposing
It are unconstitutional and void.
The decision of the Supreme Court oi
Illinois in this case will be looked for with
much interest. So far as we are advised
| it is the first case, which has come to trial
In the United States in which the constitu'
tionality of the income tax law has come
under review. A like case is now pending
in the United States Court of Missouri.
The 9th Congregational District.
| The election in the Eighth Congressiona
District. which takes place to-day, excite
much interest throughout the State. Be
low we give the vote of the district sine
1858: - .-y
! at' Et has Dem Rep Dem BE
Delaware. ......- 1917 = O.