The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-01-19

To THE EpIroR OF THE SUH-Sr; The az
position made BY Matthew Marshall in Las,
Mondays SuS OF the proposed income tar IL
generally admirable. 1 dissent only from the
first sentence in this paragraph:
income tax dire. sy .slos .ssS.
to pooason Is P,oGsSy TOO ~. to contend ms
trary in IsoS and reversal o. its dectson sine.u
would involve the return 20 those who paid them Of
der the Income TAX law of the period OF the war not
piyin as !. should 70 increased Ssu.s a. r.i.
rcuts. interest. aud dividends. 10 ali lnten, ara
purposes Adrect tax upon property and probably. II
the question were new one. it would be dsclAr.dts
be such by the supreme Court.
1t is never too late to contend" for consti.
tutional truth. Tho President and each Con.
gresham when required to approve or vote
for. q bill presented to him must on his own
conscience and his oath OF oflce. decide
whether or not the bill violates the Constitu.
ton. decision by the Supreme Court can
neither bind nor release him. 1t is not the
special junction OF the court to construe the
Constitution for tho President and Congress-
men. II case" is properly before the court
II must construe the Constitution on that
case" and everybody must oOey 80 far as
Mr.. Springer argued for the TAXPAYER on the
case" referred to. and demonstrated the I'M
yearly net income. Can he. will he now vote
for revival OF a similar law2 II he does WAS
he honest in his argument to the court
Governor Tilden was hadgered by his party
enemies. who affirmed that he had eyated the
income tax once, although he opened wide his
books to the Assessor. They got the Renubll-
can Federal officials to sue him: in order to
prejudice Democratic candidate Tor the Presi-
dency. To promote that prejudice the SUE
preme Court decision did a lot.
reversal OF that preludiced and uneco-
nomic judgment unsustainei as II was and 10
by learning, logic, reason. or common sense,
will not now involve refunds from the Treas
ury for the reason. first, that 10 protests were
filed against the exaction and suits bcgun.and
secondly. new suits are outlawed.
But with the court as IL now Is and probably
ready to reatiirm that n tax on pure income. or
on money in the Surrogates Court for leg
atee or heir is an excise. and not d.
rect taN'-there will lie peril 10 apportioniug
an income tax among the states. The court
may pronounce the Hpportioned tax Invalid.
Therefore. TIL a differently equipped court 10
had u constitutional income tax cannot De had
An Inheritance tax 10 an income tax. IL you
receive $50. 600 as n legacy you must return 10
as income under an income tax law,
In one sense an Inheritance tax Ike that OF
New York Is even moro unconstitutional than
an income tax would be IL the same percentage
be on all incomes OF verybody. How logical
human beings can say that. II q hundred
thousand dollars Of personally are in the sur
rogats's Court OF New lork-one- half for Q
relative and on half for Rcollateral-the latter
must pay a tax OF five and the former only one
per cent. il a mystery. II equal and proper.
tionRl taxing Is he rule. Can you explain ~
Matthew MarshalPs exposure Of the rank
communism OF a four thousand dollar income
tax exemption should open the eyes OF even
the blind. IL is a scheme to plumber the work.
ing bees for the benefit OF the drone bees
IA IL