The evening world., 1895-05-20
HsItOn Case Dismissed.

IN" opinion tnsn llsfnlSses lne HSlton
case with this comment: What was de-
ciiei in the Hylion case was that tax
on carriages was an excise and there
fore an indirect tax"
The opinion next took up the argument
that tax on property Is not a direct tax
within the meaning of the Constitution,
ana on this point says:
The Constitution prohibits any direct
tax unless propoCtioned in numbers as
ascertained by the census, and In the
light Of the circumstances TO which We
have referred is II not an evasion OF
that prohibition to hold that a general
unapport!oned tax imposed upon all prop
erty-owners as a body for or in respect
of their property is not direct. In the
meaning of the Constitution, because
confined to the income therefrom?
Whatever the speculative views OF
political economists or revenue reform
ers may be- can 1t be properly held thHt
the Constitution. taken in Its plain and
obvious sense. and with due regard to
the circumstances attending the forma-
tion OF the Government. authorizes an
unappor' ionel tax on the products of
the farm and rents OF real estate, oil
| though imposed merely because OF own
| ership, and with no possible means of
! escape from payment, as belonging to n
totally different class from that which
includes the property from whence the
income proceeds"
There can be but one answer. unless
| the constitutional restriction is to be
treated as utterly illusory and futile.
and the object OF It's trainers defeated.
We find 1t impossible to hold that a fun
dimental reauisition. deemed so impor-
| tant as to be enforced by two pro-
| visions. one affirmative and one mega
| tive, can be refined away by forced dis
| tinctions between that which gives
value to property Hnd the property itself
Nor can We perceive any ground why
the same reasoning does no; apply 10
capital in personality held for the pur-
| cone. and to the income therefrom. All
the real estate OF the country, and all
! It's invested personal property. are open
| To The direct operation OF the taxing
| power If an apportionment be made ac'
| cor ling to the Constitution.
| The Constitution does not say that nc
direct tax shall be laid by apportion,'
the ." a" S'T rSpds rSpGdsy All "nn Tr
| toned direct taxes; and we know OF nc
warrant for exceptin Ing personal prop
erty from the exercise of the power oi
any reason why an apportioned direcl
tax cannot be laid and assessed, as Mr.
Gallatin sad ir his report when Secre
tary OF the Treasury IN 1872 upon ,h' ,h'
| same objects of taxation on which tht
direct taxes levied under the authority
of the State are laid and assessed"
Nor are W. impressed with the crgu
ment that because in the four instance'
in which the power Of direct taxation
has been exercised Congress did no
So" fit. for reasons OF expedency, L
amounts to such practical construc
ton If the constitution that the powe
did not exist that we must regard our
| selves bound hv IT,
| We should regret to he compelled 4
hold the powers of the General Govern
mcnt thus restricted. and certainly can
not acccdc to the idea that the Consti
tuition has become weakened by a par
t.oular course OF inartion under II.
The stress of the argument IL thrown
however, on the assertion that an in
come tax Is not a property tax at all
that il is not real estate tax, or crol
tax. or "A bond tax. that 1t is ar assess
m"nt upon the taxpayer on account O
his revenue for the year preceding th
assessment; that rents received crop
harvested, interest collected, have los
Ian connection with their origin, am
although once not taxable. have hcCOm
|transmgt-d in their new form into tax
n'l" subject matter, in other words
that IurOm" is taxable irrespective q
;h- source from whence 1t t. derived.