The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-05-21

sTotractfon from the yield of all the own
manner prescribed, is so different from
tax upon the property Itself. tnat II is not
a airect, but an indirect tax. IN the mean
ing OF the Constitution.
The words of the Constitution are TO be
taken in their obvious sense and 10 have
a reasonable construction In Gibbons vs.
ogden Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall, With his
usual fehcity, said: AS men, whose in
tentions REQUIRE no concealment. generally
employ che words which most directly and
aptiy express the ideas they intend 10 con-
Ney. the enlightened patriots who framed
Or Constitution and the people who adopt,
ed it must be understood 10 have employed
words in their natural sense and TO have
intended what they have said
We know of no reason for holding other
wise than that the words direct taxes on
excises' on the other We're used in the
Constitution in their natural and obvious
sense; nor in arriving at what those
ground for enlarging them beyond or mar
rowing them within their natural and OBJ
was framped and al rafed the s nd passing from
the text, we regard the conclusion reached
as inevitable when the circumstances which
its action and the views of those who
framed and those who adopted the Con-
stitution considered.
I'VE do not care to retravel ground al
ready traversed but some observations may
be added. In the light of the struggle in
the convention as to whether the new
nation SnOulQ De empowered 10 levy taxes
directly on the individual until after the
States had failed to respond to requisi-
tons, a struggle which did not terminate
until the amendment to that effect pro-
posed by Massachusetts and concurred in
by South Carolina, New Hampshire, New
York and Rhode Island, had been rejected.
il would seem beyond reasonable question
that direct taxation, taking the place as 1t
did acquisitions. was purposely restrained
TO apportionment according TO representa-
ton in order that the former system as TO
ratio might be retained. while the mode
of collection was changed. This is forcibly
illustrated by letter OF Mr.; Madison on
after the ratification of the Constitution,
but before the organization OF the govern
ment sand the submission OF the proposed
amendment TO Congress, which, while OPP
posing the amendments as calculated to i'm
pair the power. only to be exercised in
extraordinary emergencies assigns ads- &
stantially unnecessary since. he says.
every State which chooses to collect its
own quota, may always prevent federal
collection by keeping a little before hand
in its finances and making its payment at
once into the federal treasury.
DIRECT TAXATION.
On the point of the prohibition of direct
taxation by the trainers of the Constitution
the court said:
.'The reasons for the clauses of the Con-
stitution In respect of direct taxation are
possessed plenary powers of taxation. They
could tax the property or their citizens In
such manner and TO such extent as they
saw fit; they had unrestricted powers to
impose duties or imposts on imports from
abroad, and excises on manufacturers con-
sumable commodities or otherwise. They
gave up the great sources of revenue de-
rived from commerce; they retained the
current power of levying excuses and
duties if covering anything other than eN-
cises: but In respect of them the range OF
taxation was narrowed by the power grant
ed over interstate commerce, ard by the
danger of being put at disadvantage in
dealing with excuses on manufactures. They
retained the power of direct taxation and
TO that they looked as their chief resource,
but even in respect or mat, they granted
the concurrent power, and il the tax were
placed by both governments on the same
subject the claim Of the United States had
the power of direct taxation without regard
10 their own condition and resources as
States: but they granted the power of ap-
efficacious TO serve the needs of the general
government, but securing to the States the
opportunity TO pay the amount apportioned;
the most feasible way, and in harmony
with their systems of local. self-govern-
ment IT, in the shsinges Of wealth andr,on and
ment produced inequality, 1T was inequality
stipulat ted for, just as the equal repre-
sentation of the States. however small, in
the Senate, was stipulated for. The Consti-
tuition ordains affirmatively that each State
shall have two members of that body and
ment be deprived Of its equal suffrage in
the Senate without it's consent. The Con-
stitution ordains affirmatively that repre-
sentatives and direct taxes shall be ap-
portioned among the several States accord
ing to numbers, and negatively that no di-
rect tax shall be laid unless in proportion
TO the enumeration.
1.-The founders anticipated that the
penditures of the States. their counties.
cities and towns would chiefly be met by
direct taxation on accumulated property.
they expected those
government would be for the most part
met by indirect taxes. . And in order that
the power of direct taxation by the general
government should not be exercised, except
on necessity. and. when the necessity
arose. should be so exercised as TO leave
the States at liberty TO discharge their re-
Spective obligations, and should not be so
exercised, unfairly and discriminatingly, as
to particular States or otherwise by mere
majorty vote possibly of those whose con-
stituents were Intentionally not subjected
10 any part of the burden, the qualified
that the power 10 tax involved the power
to destroy. and that. in the language of
Chief Justice Marshall. the only security
against the abuse of this power is found
i'm the structure of the government itself.
In imposing a tax the Legislature acts on
its constituents This is. in general. a suf-
pressive taxation. and they retained this
security by providing that direct taxation
and representation in the lower house of
Congress should be adjusted the same
measure. Moreover. whatever the reasons
for the constitutional provisions there
they are and they appear to us TO speak in
plain language.
TAN ON THE WHOLE INCOME.
''It is said that tax on the whole in
come of property is not direct tax in the
meaning Cf the Constitution, but a duty,
and as duty, leviable without apportion-
ment whether direct or indirect We do
not think so. Direct taxation was not re-
stricted in breath, and the restriction
blown into the winds in another Cooley
ION taxation) says that the word duty or
dinariiy means an indirect tax imposed
on the Importation, expectation or con-
sumption of goods having "a broader
meaning than customs, which is 4 duty
imposed on imports or exports that the
term impOst also signifies any tax tribute
or duty, but it is seldom applied TO any
but the indirect taxes. An excise duty is
an inland impOst. levied upon articles of
manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses
TO pursue certain trades or TO deal in GER
tain commodities In the Constitution the
words duties, imposts and excuses are put
in antithesis TO direct taxes.
I'm this connection IL may be useful
though at the risk of repetition, to refer
thrown into relief In the pages of the Fed.
eralist and in respect of the enactment OF
the carriage tax act, and again to briefly
consider the Hylton case so much dwelt or
in argument. The act of June 4, 1924, laying
duties upon carriages for the conveyance oi
persons, was enacted in a time of threatenec
war 1t was therefore, as much a part oi
a system of taxation in war times as was
the income tax of the war of the rebel
q bill SGel the House or tba