The herald., 1895-05-21

tion of the validity of the tax on income
from real estate and on income from mu-
nicipaf bonds. The question thus limited
was whether such taxation was direct or
not, in the meaning of the constitution,
and the court went no further as to the
tax on income from real estate than to
bold it fell within the same class az
the source whence the income was dc.
rived that is, that the tax upon realty
and tax upon receipts therefrom were
alike direct. While as to the income
from municipal bonds. that could not
be taxed, because of wunt of power to tax
the source. and no referen ce was made to
the nature of taxes being direct or indi-
rect.
"We are now permitted to broaden the
field of inquiry and determine to which
of the great classes tho tax upon per.
sons entire income, whether derived
from rents or products or otherwise, OF
real estate, or from bonds, stocks or other
forms of personal property, belongs, and
we are unable to conclude that enforced
subtraction from the yield Of all owners
real or personal property in the mannei
prescribed, is so different from tax
upon property itself, til at it is not di-
rect, but an indirect ia K in the meaning
of the constitution. The words of the
constitution are to be taken in their obvi-
GUS sense, and have a. reasonable con-
struction. We know NO reason for hold
ing otherwise than that excise words 'di.
rect taxes on one hand and duties, inn
posts and excuses ON the other were
used in the constitution in their natural
and obvious senses. Nor in arriving at
what those terms embrace do we perceive
any ground for enlarging them beyond
or narrowing them within the natural
and obvious import at the time the con-
stitution was framed and ratified.
and passing from til g text. we regard
the conclusion reached as inevitable when
the circumstances which surrounded the
conv anton and controlled its action and
the views of those who framed and
adopted the constitution are considered.
The chief justice discussed the reasons
for constitutional provisions regarding
direct taxation. The states had plenary
power of taxation, he said, but gave up
great sources of revenue derived from
commerce and retained the power of
levying taxes and duties covering any
tuluS ObucT vudu eIACISCos Uuv III IcSpcCb
to them the range of taxation was mar
rowed by the power granted the federal
government over interstate commerce.
While they granted power apportionng
direct taxation, they secured to the states
opportunity to pay the amount appor-
toned. and recoup from its own citizens
in the most feasible way.
The opinion continued: SIT is said
that on the whole the income OF property
is not direct tax, but a duty. We do
not think so. Direct taxation was not re-
stricted in breath. and the restriction
blown to the winds in another"
The opinion dismissed the Hylton case
with this comment: "What was decided
in the Hylton case was that tax on car
riages was excise. and therefore an indi-
rect tax" The opinion next took up the
argument that tax upon property is not
direct tax within the meaning OF the
constitution. and said: I'VE find it i'm.
possible to hold that the fundamental re-
QUESTION. deemed so important has been
forced by two provisions, one affirmative
and one negative; can be defined away by
forced distinctions between that which
gives value to property itself. Stress OF
argument is thrown, however, on the as
sertion that the income tax is not prop
erly tax at all: that it is an assessment