The San Francisco call., 1895-05-21

orally q uel OH ldlu, Wnlle IlaC on rents Is
not. In its essence a tax on rents is tax
on money and the tax is payable in money.
He said the present decision was step
in advance of the courts former decision,
and said, incidentally, that the present
conclusion lad been reached by bare
majority. In his Judgment, to say moth
ing of former holdings of the court, the
decision might well excite very grave ap-
prehension. Continuing, he said:
In my Judgment this decision strikes at the
very foundations of national authority, in that
it denies to the general Government power
which is, or may at some time in a great
emergency. such as that of war become vital
to the existence and preservation OF the Union.
1t tends to re-establish that condition of help
lessness in which Congress found itself
during the period of the articles OF
confederation, when it was without powers
by laws operating directly upon individuals to
lay and collect, through its own agents, taxes
sufficient to pay the debts and defray the ex-
penses of Government, and was dependent in
all such matters upon the good will of the
States and promptness in making the requi-
sitions made upon them by Congress.
In its practical operations this decision with
draws from national taxation not only all in
comes derived from real estate, but the per-
sonal property of the whole country-personal
property, bonds, stocks, investments of all
kinds-and the income that may be derived
from such property. This result is from the
fact that, under the decision of the court, such
incomes cannot be taxed otherwise than by
apportionment among the States on tho basis
simply of population
No such .apportionment can possibly be made
without doing n1onstrous wicked injustice to
the many for the benefit of the favored few in
particular States. Any attempt on the part of
Congress to apportion taxation of incomes
among the States upon the basis of their popu-
lation would, and properly ought to, arouse
such an indignation among the freemen of
America that it would never be repeated. The
American majority practically decides that
without an amendment of the constitution
such incomes can never be made to contribute
to the support of the National Government
If this new theory of the constitution as
believe it to be-if this new departure from the
way marked out by the fathers, is justified by
the fundamental law, the American people
cannot too soon amend their constitution
The Judgment just rendered defeats the pur-
pose of Congress by taking out of the revenue
not less than $50, 100000 and possibly $780,
100000 expected to be raised from in
comes. We know from the official REPORTS of
both houses of Congress that taxation
would not have been reduced to the extent it
was by the Wilson act but for the belief that if
the country had the benefit of revenue derived
from tax on incomes, that could be safely
done. In every possible way the two houses of
Congress indicated that must be part of any
scheme for reducing the taxation and for raising
revenue for support of the Government; that
with certain exceptions) incomes arising from
every kind of property and from every trade
and calling should bear some of the burdens of
the taxation imposed. If the court knows or
is justified in believing that Congress would
not have provided an income tax which did
not INCLUDE tax on incomes from real estate
we are more justified in believing the Wilson
act would not have become law at all with
out provision being made for it in the income
tax.
If, therefore, all the income sections of the
Wilson act must fall because some of them are
invalid, does not the judgment this day rem
dered furnish ground for the contention that
the entire acts fall when the court strikes from
it all of the income tax provisions, without
which the act would never have been passed :?
But the court takes care to state that there is
no question as to the validity of any part of
the Wilson act except those sections which
provide for tax on incomes. Thus something
is stated for the support and maintenance of
the Government.
The practical if not the direct effect of the
decision to-day is to give to certain kinds of
property position of favoritism, an advant-
age inconsistent with the fundamental prin-
ciple of our social organization, to invest them
with power and influence that is perilous to
that portion of the people upon whom rests
the larger part of the burdens of the Govern
ment, and who ought not to be subjected to
the dominion of aggregated wealth any more
than the property of the country should be at
the mercy of the lawless.