Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-06

meeting the people were assured that there
could be no oppression. because direct
taxes must be laid according to representa-
ton.
He quoted many authorities to show that
the people did not understand that the
word direct" as used in the Constitution,
applied only to capital taxes and taxes lev
led direct on land He then examined the
tax laws of the colonies and states in order
to show the Gafniliarities of the delegates
with tax not only upon land and income
derived therefrom, but upon personal prop
erty, with the view of proving that the
delegates must have intended to include
tax on personal estate, for otherwise 1t
must be cleafr that if they contemplated
merely land tax they would have used
those words. Ok
Direct Taxes.
He argued that the fact that Congress
was given power also to lay indirect taxes
cannot change the scope and meaning of
the term direct taxes" If the Constitu-
ton thus stood with the power of Congress
limited to direct taxes" would any court
have ever held that direct taxes did not
include a tax upon personal property, such
as the people of every state were then
ernments?
The Cause of the Error.
The point Of his contention was that the
authorities established the principle that
taxation upon the income of one class of
property is Objectionable as upon another.
He charged the Hylton case with being the
sole cause of all the error in this matter
at length. 1t was. he said political case
In which the administration of Washington
was pltted against the anti-federalists and
the case In which the local prejudice cut
an important figure I'VE are told he
said. that although the conclusion might
be different II the question were new one,
the court is precluded from considering
the merits of a constitutional question or
guaranty by the expressions in this case.
Ia q "
or original error 1t Is never too late to
adopt and declare the truth as to the Con-
stitution. Under such circumstances as are
here presented, the doctrine Of stare decisis
should not be applied"
But II the HyltOn case decided that d.
rect taxes included only capitation taxes
and taxes directly on land. why did the
court in Veasie Bank agt. Fenno. in Sth
Wallace. add: And perhaps taxes on per-
sonal property by general valuation has
assessment OF the various description pos
seSSed within the several states"
What could be more of a general as
sessment than tax assessed upon income
of personal property from all sources
whatever?
decision in the Hylton case had been ac-
cepted as deciding that only the capitation
tax and the land tax were direct taxes,
and asked If this was so why was it that
Congress. In 1876. less than thirty days
after the decision was rendered, had in
structed the Secretary of the Treasury, by
resolution, to report a plan for laying
dill ect taxes by apportionment?
He also cited other authority to show
that the decision was not accepted as In
any manner conclusive, extending his quo
tations to the time when the income tax
Of 1861 was under consideration in Con-
gress.
No New Argument.
at has been said" continued Mr.. Guth-
RE. that we submit no new argument.
But is that a weakness? We have not
strained after new effects. We concede
that all we say. finds its inspiration in
what was said art the time the Constitu-
ton was adopted at the time the Hylton
case was decided, and in every case argued
since that day. 1t seemed to us wise not
to attempt to submit any novel or new
ideas. but to Vbe able to stand upon what
had been said repeatedly in this case and
in Congress in regard to the true inter-
probation of this term of the Constitu-
tion." I.-.,f
Much was said Upon the prior argument
in regard to the awful responsibility which
the court would assume in declaring an act
Of Congress Unconstitutional. and the
clamor that 1t might excite. 1t may not,
thereto lie. be amlss to observe that while
We have been contesting soma OF the pro-
visions of the Wilson tariff bill on the
Department of Justice itself has been
earnestly carrying on contest on precise
ly tn, same ground against certain sec
been done with SO much ability and success
that the executive branch of the govern
ment has procured judgment annulling
unconstitutional and void the sugar
bounty sections of that act. Therefore, 1t
should rot, it seems to u.s. excite comment,
and much less criticism, that private citi-
zens, in protection of their own rights,
nave followed this example.
Mr.. Guthrie commended that the power to
tax incomes was not essential to the sup
port of the government and instanced the
small percentage of the expenses of con-
Quoting the civil war, which was borne by
the revenue derived from the income taz-
Mr.. Guthrie did not regard as of great
Importance the plea that a direct tax by
apportionment would be unjust. New York
would, he said. be satisfied to pay it's share.
as he believed other states would be. Il
know the sentiment of my state She will
gladly pay double thirteen-we will grasp
at the opportunity of paying % per cent Of
all the taxes If the people of the United
States are prepared to give her 20 per cent
OF the representation In Congress at the
present time and in the coming crisis
The Intention of Congress.
Mr. Guthrie then presented at some length
the contention that as it was clearly the
intention of Congress to have the law act
as whole upon all income, the provisions
" hich are unquestionably void invalidate
the whole act. The law, ne said, expressly
includes rents and other income from land
and from personal property. and its gen.
eral language covers also income from
municipal bonds. The government has in
sisted that it was not only the intention
but within the power of Congress to tax
the income from municipal bonds. Thus
We have in this act, by reason of the in
tention of the trainers and the scope of the
laI guage used, provisions deliberately yio-
lating the plain words of the Constitution
and attempting to tax sources of income
which Congress had no power to touch, d.
rectly or indirectly.
The object of the act is single and en-
tire, that is to say, the taxation of in
come from all sources. In order to pre-
serve the provisions now remaining the
court must strike out words actually used,
such as rents, income and product of land,
and also add limitation substantially in
these words Nothing herein contained
shall apply to rents or product of land or
income derived from real or personal es-
tate or municipal bonds" This court be-
fore it can attempt thus to legislate must
be clearly satisfied that Congress would
have passed the act in this mutilated form
He declared the act should be sent back to
Congress because arbitrary and unjust and
in violation of the express provisions of the
Constitution.
He then took up the question of exemp-
lions and limitations, repeating much of