Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1895-01-01

m1ElLeQ 10 DIA4SLLoSlcs w tAc AS4tV"
ing grounds: First that the petitioner
is denied the equal protection Of the
law, In that various corporations in
which he is 4 shareholder are by sec
tioas % OF the new law required to pay
a TAX Of per cent. on their net earn
ings respectively, without regard to any
dividends paid out Of such net earn
ings. and by sections % aud . OF the
act the petitioner is required 10 pay
Ike tax upon the moneys so paid TO him
as dividends by the corporations re-
spectively, thus duplicating the tax on
the petitioner, and that this taxation is
unjust and unequal, in that II discrim-
mates against the petitioner, for the
purposes Of taxation, and other persons
who are citizens OF the United States,
and wholly exempts such persons from
taxation who have an Income to any
amount up to and not in excess OF the
sum Of $4,000 per annum. In this way,
the petitioner insists, be snd others In
the same condition as he are denied the
equal protection OF the law.
In the next pIa ace he COMPLAINS that
sections 81 and 2S are invalid because
Of the provision that aliens, who reside
in the United States. whether perma-
uenuy or only temporarily, shall ike
wise be- subject TO the payment Of the
tax, although their income be derived
wholly from sources outside Of the jur-
isdiction Of the United States, and that
this is 10 effect undertaking, uniSwfully
and without authority, 10 tax the in
comes Of the citizens OF foreign coun-
tries alien to the United States who
may have within tha United States a
temporary residence Contemporary pur-
poses.
Flnally, the complaint is made that
the Law provides no exemption from
the taxation of incomes Of corporations
within the United States, Of which there
are many, which, although carried on
for profit, are created, owned and oper-
ated by the several States respectively
as instrumentalitjes aud agencies of the
state governments, and in promotion OF
the police aud other public functions
aud policies Of such States, aud which
corporations, so being agencies OF the
governments OF the respective States,
are not subject TO taxation by the
United States. aud that, further, by
the provisions of the law, assessments
are to be made upon the income Of the
petitioner aud others that had been
earned and received by them prior 10
the time at which the provisions Of the
act took effect, and that all the taxes
mentioned, attempted 10 be assessed and
collected upon incomes, are not within
the constitutional jurisdiction Of Con-
gress 10 impose.
Ex-Seu ator Edmunds, who ranks high
as a constitutional lawyer is said to
have framed the petition.
Even a person not versed in the law
may see, however, that the plea against
the constitutionality Of the income tax
is weak ami does nothing more than
point out some Objectionable features
in it which DO not affect the constItu-
tionality Of the principle on which the
law is based Furthermore, the United
states Supreme Court has already pass
ed upon the coustitutonaIity OF the in
come tax, 10 the case of Springer vs..
the United States in 1850. The suit
was brought by the Illinois Congress
man 10 test the validity Of the sale of
land for the payment Of an income tax.
The court was unanimous in sustaining
tue law. The opinion" SAYS an ex-
change recalling the case, was most
exhaustive on the subject, and In order
90 get possible light upon the meaning
or the trainers Of the constitution they
examined the Journal Of the proceed
ipgs OF the convention, the Madison
papers, the "Federalist," the debates
Of the state conventions by which the
constitution was adopted, the letters
and writings Of Hamilton and Madison
on the question, every act Of congress
touching the subject of a direct tax
from the time the constitution went in
TO effect TO the income tax law Of 1863,
and an prior decisions OF the supreme
court on the subject.
The vital question involved was
whether the income tax was direct
tax ia the meaning of the constitution.
It so 70 was clearly unconstitutional, as
that instrument declares that 20 "capi-
tation or other direct tax" shall be lev-
lea, except in proportion TO the census
enumeration. The Supre me Court in
the Springer case disposed Of this objec-
ton as follows:
The question, what is direct tax, is one
exclusively OF American 1urlsptuQence.
The text-writers of the country are IN Gu
tire accord upon the subject. The conclu-
sious arc that direct taxes, within the
meaning Of the constitution, are only capi-
tation taxes, as expressed in that iuStrU-
ment. and taxes on real estate; and that
toe tax Of which the plaintiff complains IS
within the category OF an excise or duty.
Ii is further observed that the arcu-
ments in favor OF its being a direct tax
we're not ''of such weight as TO re-
ouire any special reply" and were
srni.-antlv answered by ALexander