The Nevada picayune., 1885-07-02
National Power to Tax the Income
 of Railroad Corporations.


 district, some discussion has arisen as to the power ofthe National gov erhment 10 tax the income of rail road corporations,
 We understand the Hon. T. c. McRae to insist that the exercise of such power would be constitu- tional; and that some, probably all of his competitors take issue with.him upon that point.
 We are clearly of the opinion that MT. McRae is right about it, In the first place it would not be a direct tax, and, therefore, would not come within the third clause of second section of the first Article of the CCnstitu of tho United States, requiring direct taxes 10 be levied in the several States accord ing to their respective numbers or population. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hyiton against the United States, Sd Dallas, IT, holds that "a tax on carriages, under the Act of June ., l19i, is not direct tax, and so not required by the Constitution to be laid according to the census" In the several opinions of the judges delivered in that case they held in effect that under the Constitution of the United States there could be no such thing as a direct tax, except upon the poll, and upon lands.
 In addition to the direct taxes provided for as above stated, in the eighth section of the said second Article of the Constitution of the United States it is declared that, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, i'm posts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common de- fensc and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, i'm posts, and eXcises shall he uniform throughout the United Statcs.' In the case above cited Chiet Justice Chase says ''the great object of the Constitution was to give Congress q power 10 levy taxes adequate to the eXigencies of tue government; l but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely, the rule of uniformity when they laid duties imposts. or excises, and the rule of apportionment according to the census when they laid any direct tax. If there are other species Of taxes not direct, and hot included within the words duties, impcsts, or eXclses, they may be laid by the rule of uniforminity or not. as Con- gress shall think proper and reaS- enable. Judge Patterson, in the same case, insists that taxes other than direct taxes should be levied according to the ruleof uniformity; in which view of the case we think he was right. But Chief Justice Chase and Judge Patterson, ana also Judge Iredell, whc delivered an opinion m the same case, concur in the opinion that the Congress of the United States has power to levy a tax on carriages for the conveyance of persons. The iudg- ment of the Supreme Court of the United States in this case has nev- CT been questioned, and its correct ness is demonstrated by the power of taxation given in the eighth sec ton of the second Article of the Constitution above referred to, which is not limited with reference to the objects of taxation, except as to exports, and the manner of levying. And the.income of rail- road corporations is as much an. obj ect of taxation as pleasure and
 
 travcling carriages. In fac. the Congress of the United States, by section 122 of the Internal Reve. nue Act of 1864, as amended by that of 1866, did tax the interest on debts due from railroad corpora tions. Its power 10 do this has never been questioned, and was in effect sustained by the decisions in the case of Barnes versus the Rail roads, 17th Wallace, 20i. In a word, all the Internal Revenue laws of the United States sustain this power in its general effect. and have, with a few isolated cxcep- tions, involving the income and revenue of the several States, and the income and revenue of their municipal corporations, been sus- tained as Constitutional, The busi-