The evening world., 1895-05-06
HEARD BEFORE A FULL BENCH
Continued from First PageD

~ NNIl Nil'' t'ile tuition was NDt Inc
'r,Nton NJ the lni!luci2alL convention,
bat was The r,sI q ..uv ~. .er.enCe OF
ages. he trlm'rs of 1t sec practical
l.'h who had Il rlu. ou"i lis rust in
theories VI asserted that he PROV iston
Ia regard ~ 'l"ct taxes We not tn.
serted hlind y. the ,ppo-i on Seem2d
to Content, IN, WITS II" result OF a
,ompr mi e. as al uli,r tool
IN" power To- lay tan tor the common
defense ana welfare VI the United States
me tr"m,is 81 The t"nsutaion deem"
restraints upon the method of the cX-
crrisC OF that TON g.
Thoy had suN,r,u irr generations from
the Operation o. unequal AK laws, an
ihoN nat i"'.-u' tlc -rct, StruEg.r uf
the Revolution To maintain the principle
ma taxation should tr at,oiu.ab 10
representa-. ON
for themselves mi Tot poster ~ NGicr
would prevent congress trom levy az
dii,ri taxes. except hy lprurtlp n.n, Mt
accord nE to the ruruithln "f tn" re
imp"Sts ana ,N' 3 VIII ri were no;
equal OF u1fo'i. ~, thoy 'oli to ay-
compiish What lhcy irtonhri, wat they
tie quctcl many authorities to how
hat tine people an not understlni mat
thc word dtrcCt. as used In the con
!!Ncs and taxes levied directly N l,nt
He then cNann,d tn" tIN Laws OF tlc
colonies AMI States in order t. show the
familiarity of the delegates with taNe,
not only upon Land and Income derived
hut upon personal property,
with view Of proving that the Il l,glt,s
must have intended to include taN on
be- ie,r stat ,h5 Tor S,nerM,ne it mnsI
merely land tax they would have used
those words
lie argurd that the fact that Congress
was given power also to lay indirect
taxes cannot change ana
meaning Of the term direct taxes" II
the Constitution thus stood with the
power. of Congress limited to direct
taxes" would any court have ever held
mat direct tdNcs' tid not Include "A
tax upon personal property. such as the
people 81 every stat" were then paying
for the. support of their local govern
mcnts?'
Here MIR. Guthrie diverted his atten.
tiun to the consideration Of the history
OF direct taxation and excise taxes lie
contended that there was no difference
in principle between taxation OF land
ana the taxation of personal property.
which is recognized in Jurisprudence
,nlnascd'" said ne, When you tax me
the very property itself far more than
In the case of land. Land has some
use irrespective Of its income; but the
great body of personal property has no
by reason of the income arising there
from. OF what value IL "A bond or share
OF u ltk on many chattclS except the
income dcrivahlc thercfrom.
Take the Income and YOU take the
thing the substance itself logically-if
taxes on rents, issues and profits of
I, Al cEtato are equivalent to taxes On
the land itself. and, therefore. direct
taxes, taxes on the income of personal
property as such must be equivalent TO
taxes on such property, and. therefore
sist that the tax cannot be deemed
direct because It Is imposed only upon
the income property, and therefore does
not fan upon property which yields no
income.
The point OF his contention. said Mr..
Guthrie. was that the authorities estab-
lsh the principle that taxation upon the
income OF one class Of property Is as
objectionable as upon another. He
charged the Ilylton case with being the
sole cause of all the error in this mat
which the Administration Of Washing
ton was pitted against the anti-Federa,-
lists and case in which local prejudice
cut an important figure;
the conclusion might he different II the
question wer" new one the Court is
preCludei from con sdcring the merits
Of "A constitutional question or uarantee
argument comedies the possibility Of
original error. It is never too late to
adopt and declare truth as to the Con
stitution. Under such circumstances as
are here presented the doctrine of stare
decisis should not he applied"
Eut If the liylion case decided that
taxes and taxes directly on land. why
did the Court in Ne0Zie Bank vs. Fenno
In Wallace add: And perhaps laxes
on personal property by general vAiua-
States" What could be more of a gem
eral assessment uan a tax assessed
upon income Of personal property from
"a Wh1t,Vprp
He controversial the opinion that the
decision in tn llylton case had been &C
ccptcd as deciding that only the capita
ton tan ard the lana tax were direct
taxes, and asked II this was so, why
VAS It that Congress in 1876, less than
thirty days after the decision was rem.
lrr,l haI instructed the Secretary OF
the Treasury by resolution to report Il
plan for laying direct taxes by appor-
tionmcnt.
IT. as is now ella med. the Supreme
Court in March had settled once for all
what was meant and included In the
term direct taxes, would Oliver Wolcott,
ir.. then Secretary of the Treasury.
have prepared an elaborate report as 10
the systems II direct taxes In the vari-
Gus States in order 20 show Congress
what the objects of direct taxes m ght
1t was published IN the oaic!al docu-
mcnts OF the Government page after
page. referring 80 direct taxes. and
pointing "ut personal property an IN.
come as among thc objects of direct
t1yntinn, demonstrating the practical
interpret ton Of the Grv,r nmeEt At III I
TIM" under Washington Yet Ne are
asked 20 believe. n,at this performance
AS sham iui - much waste paper,
h-Caus" tn" -NhO'" matter had been DIS
posed ana settled 10y rhc llylton case
IL also c'tol other au hnri'y to show
that IL" ,eni. ION va mt accepted as
his ,urrat .Ous t. the tim" when the
Incor1o rnv NJ l'l was under consider