New-York tribune., 1868-04-09
PRICE FOUR CENTS.

4
and Is direct tax" liyton sgt the United States
Now il win appear by other decisions Of tbis court and
OF other courts, that the Of land in
Ieet ana In law the same thing as tax the land IL
az well as the Income Of other property IL In legal In
tendment and construction tax land as well as on
other property; tax land direct tax, and being
unapporoned according TO the census II IS niy
unconstitutional and void
has long been settled devise Of the in
cong OF land is in effect the dcyisc of
NewYo the doctrine is held III Wendell, 2s; II
Wendell 4O2) devise Of the rents and profits OF land
the income Of land is equivalent to devise OF c Land
itself Washbum Real Property, 3 ,62. and
there citedJ And the rule which has uniformly gov
where any principle OF law establishing rule of real
property has been settled in the State courts, the
rule will be applied by that court that would e applied
by the state tribunals. jackson agt Chew. u Wheaton,
1881 Thus it Is the doctrine OF the supreme Court OF no
United states. as well AZ OF The state conrt tat de
wise OF the income OF land the same thing dsl he OF
the land And the court has decided in ei eases that
IN leyyiDg taxes, as well as III the devise o. hd Inc
substance and not the fOT1n must govern ana aY. pro
nounced Illegal the various attempts which BAY. from
Time 10 time been made to lay some pr0hintea h ny
te mere evasion OF the express words OF the prohibition
There If certainly more plausible ground Tor o1nisId
ln2 tnat there Is difference IN principle between lax
on bill OF lading and tax the article shipped than
for distinction between tax ON the value Of land AID
a tax on the income Of land. Yet In the of Almy
agt the State of California GA Howard, li4 the Supicme
Court OF the United States held that tax day
bill Of lnding although differing In form from duty
the article shipped u.s. IN substance, the same hng and
that law prohibiting tax on the article shipped by
necessary duplication prohibits tax on the bill OF ading
" the same article.
occupation OF importer by requiring him Ia ray fer
license to carry is business; but ChrfJusiice Mar
shall decided that this tax on imports. and bring
laid by State, unconstitutional aud VOID. Brown
agt. Maryland, IL Wheaton, 42g.
In another the Supreme Court OF the United states
decided the exact question ut issue here whether TAX
the income Of thing the tax on the Ting
levied office could not be legally levied ON the IN
of the Office; IRON which tirpss0ly follows
that an unapportoned tax cannot c0nstltuOnaly be
laid upon land ii cannot constitutOnay he Laid upon the
income Of land This was the ease Of Dob6lhs agt me
nnia NJ ErraG IL
cided that the emOuments Of office could not he taxed
IL the Office exempt u6 Peters i55g the decslons
of the cOurtsOf the highest State tribunals ad OF the
Supreme Court OF the United states-are TO stand, If
Of the income Of land devise Of the land itsc
II the the income of office L. effect the
tax the Office, then the income tax being i"N on
the income of property IN general, is In legal prrpt
the thing general assessment on property and
being upon the income of land, as well AZ OF o,her
property Is, in effect tax on land lt Is dlreel tah
ton requires that all direct taxes must be aportOned
is laid without the authority OF the Constitution and
been decided by ChierJGstice Marshall IAN act resant
to the Constitution cannot become the law OF the land
Marbury agt Madison, CTanch. 137.D
The statute law of the United States well as The de-
csons OF the Courts recognize real estate and the III
Of real estate TO be the same thing IL accounts
succession 10 the income 10 be succession 10 Va" real
estate This is done by the very act which imposes the
succession TO real estate and 1t denes succession Ia
real estate TO be every DISPOSITION OF real sss n s
TO any real estate. or the income thereof"
The case might safely rested here the decision Of
the Courts but the matter of such grave Importance
that il worth while parsue somewhat rner and
10 consider what would be the consequences OF differ
ent and opposite doctrine The States have generally
,essed their taxes upon real and personal propc sud
have considered this direct taxation. ee report m oil
Wocot IT,, Secretary Of the Treasury TO Congress-
Direct Taxes. 1885, George Nicholas, la the Virginia
Convention 1885, speaking Of the State systems OF aAa
tiOn. said The public treasures are supplied by means
later date have regarded general assessment on prop
ery1the prevailing mode OF ieyyng ta1%s "a 'ne as
without resort to heavy direct taxes Webster IN the
Ihaye already trust established tho point by refer
judicial decisions that II general assessment on
property is direct tax. the Income iaX on the heoin ot
property in general Is not less direct tax To rUhIO
either branch OF this proposition bOt must be con
trovered Let ms examine IN what pTedIcalncDt ne.
property is direct taxation would leave the state ~
NewYork The most important financial legislation of
this State Is based upon that principle Oli state to-
stutOn artice sections l0l2 provides that no dobs
with certain exceptions therein speclnGd s'te's &
law authorizing the provision be made Tor ne y
ment OF the interest and oi tue pIincIpa Wi.Lin
years by an annual direct tan The slate hs uhoGmg
construed the requirement for direct Tax 10 ne IH'u
by general assessment III general assessment ~, ho'
direct tax, the practice OF inc state OF ~
this particular has been ana continues 10 u" whH rtto
neOus and unconstitutional The state raised 10000
of bounty money IL has no c3ilrutnlon'l nuuoi'} ~
raise money To pay tile DEBT this incuffC except ~
direct tax. The only provision made Tor raising the
money TO pay is by general ASSESSMENT II hc Thtai
assessment be not direct tax, every step WNuh io
Of bounty moDcy-eithcr the plln,lpal or ih' i"'tr
est-he tramples upon the Constitution 81 ihe N'"h
distinction between "a general assessment on prep
erty and tax on the iucome or the same property.
men of the s27 100000 OF bounty money not direct
TAX and consequently violation of the Cons Inion oi
the state of New-lork, or the income tiA - "A ~
rect tax and, being unapportioned, ~ consequently
violation OF the Constitution OF the United S"'rs ~
is direct tax both are direct taAe ara Onr oi ihe
other must inevitabybe unauthorized II the Income N
is be maintained tne legislation OF the STATE 81 New
s3on Ine one Is repagnans 20 70 e Se q" Nc
TT,ife Sfafe From is
The only ground Oh Which the unapporuoncd income lah
be held TO he constitutional is at tax Weh "Oud
be legal laid properly may legally be ad on tie
income OF the same property Let Us sec WIN "hat BIS
chief this principle would be fraught II Introduced nto
state legislation II II sound ard valid applied to
the laws OF the natOn IL Is equally sound ana van" IS
It's adoption woud lead. The States prohibited From
laying imposts duties imports or exports except
inspection laws Cons. L. T., art ], see. lOD
1T WOULD OVERTHROW THE GENERAL "oNEhNhhNl,
correct il the United States beng prohibited from !a3
ing unapporoned tax land can LAY u "h The ID
come of land, then by parity OF reasoning the siars
which are prohibited from taxing imports aud eApofis
may lay OF any amount on all incomes derive" nom
guarding against such subtle distinctions. existing only
FORM the exercise Of the power OF taxation ""s al
parent 10 ChefJustce Marshall when ,be subject hS1
came judicialy before him. To his comlTehch'Jio
sagaci6us arseeing mind, IT was clear that the VERY ca
istence OF the General Government delthdrd upon "
ruling these upsubstantIal technical distinctions IN
speaking of the attempt TO evade the prohibition 10
naliy taxing the occupation Of AN importer, he
said: 1t is impossible 10 conceal nom our
selves that this is varying the form without ."Ii
ing the substance. IL Is treating prohibition which
general II confined 10 the particular H"d" oi
doing the forbidden thing" ~ wheaton, 4jsJ An" M
the same he said All must perceive that LiN o1
the sale of article imported only for se - aA on the
article ITSELF. very interesting attempt 10 It ah w
constitutional tax by evasion Was made by The Stale Of
Maryland The United States Banh bl authority ~ ils
charter derived from the General Government. esiab
shed branch bank In Marylaud. o. coGrs1 bic STATE
could this branch otherwise IL ghi taA ont
of exisencs aud destroy or seriously Impair within IT,
own limits the power OF the General Government Ia bor
row money The State tried 10 eyade the prohibition ~
Imposing the tax the bills OF the hrinsb bank. The
Supreme Court decided that the tie bills 'lh
stantlally the same thing tho banL. th,rf
Justice Marshall with characteristic IenriraiI"n. per
ceyed that the question Involved principle yiti 80 ne