The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-21


framed and those VINO asorted the con
et3-utsor are corsssd~--aF
TIE Grief 5Sxthce assc aEze1 re reasons
Tor the constitutional provisions regard
Lax t5rec- aax4s5on- The states had fsen-
s-y powers Of taxation, he sal. o<F gave
ID +he great sources o. revenue derived
from commerce, ard retained The power
~ ievylnz taxes and duties covering any
rfang other than ezctses. But IN respect
20 xsarTn. ire range OF taxation was nsr-
rowed by ne power grained the FEDERAL
government over interstate commerce
White they granted the power OF appor-
ssor1ng direct taxation. f1sey secured 20
Ese states the opportunity 30 Ray tae
susours apporttonsd and recozIp from
their OWE citizens II the most feasible
way
The opinion continues 1T Is sad thai
AK OF the whole income OF property IL
cot direct tax. Dot duty. We do not think
-. Direct taxation vas not restricted in
= breath, and the restriction thrown 10
tne Winds ia another"
The opinion dismissed the Hilton case
win this comment: What was decided
sn the Hilton case was that a tax or car
r.sges was excise. and therefore an indi-
seet tax" The opinion next took ID the
argument that a tax on property Is not
= direct tax. within the meaning Of the.
constitution. and said; We End # i'm
possible 10 hold thai the fundamental re-
QUESTION deemed 80 s-np8tant as 20 De
enforced By two provisions. one afirma-
tive and one negative, can be defined
away by forced distinctions between that
which gives q value 10 property. and the
property Itself. The stress Of argument IS
thrown. however or the assertion that an
income tax is not a property tax at all
that II Is an assessment upon the tax
payer upon account OF his money spending
power as shown by his revenue for the
year preceding the assessment That the
rents received, crops harvested. and
interest collected have lost all connection
with their origin, and although once not
taxable, have been tranmittsG in their new
form into taxable subject matter. In
other words. that an income is taxable
irrespective OF the source whence II is
derived"
The chief justice said that since the
court had held unanimously that receipts
from municipal bonds should not be taxed
because the bonds were the instruments Of
states. the same rule applied 10 revenue
from other sources not subject to the tax.
and the lack of power 10 levy any but an
apportioued tax on real and personal prop
erty equally exists as 70 the revenue
fberefrom. THE court does not under
stand" IL says. that an Income tax mas
ever been regarded IN England as otHef
than a direct tax"
After thig review Of the cases and con
siderafion OF arguments Of counsel. the
court as IL approached it's conclusions,
made the following general argument;
''Lf II were a fact that there had been
10 income tax law such as this at the
time the constitution was framed and
adopted II would not be or controlling
Importance. A direct tax cannot be TAX
en- out OF the final rule because the par
sfcular tax did not exist at the time the
rule was prescribed.
he T.
lists OF raising thirty. forty or any other
number Of million dollars for the support
Of the government. In addition 10 the
revenue from duties inposts and ex-
cses, apportfon the quota OF each state
upon the basis of the census and thus
advise n of the payment which must be
made and proceed 10 assess that amount
on all the real and personal property or
she income of all persons In the state,
and collect the same IL the state does not
a. the meantime assume and gay its quota
and collect me amount according 10 its
own system and its own way?
Figures drawn from the census are
given, showing that enormous assets of
mutual insurance companies, of building
associations. Of mutual savings banks. and
the large produciiv property Of ecclesias-
teal organiza tons are exempted. and that
the exemptions reach so many hundreds
of millions that the rate OF taxation would
they had not been made. We are not deal
ing with the act from that point Of view.
but, assuming the data 10 ne substantially
reliable IL the sum desired 20 be raised
had been apportioned It may be doubted
whether any state which paid its quota
and collected the amount by its own
methods, would or could. under Its const-
tuition. have allowed a large part OF the
property alluded TO 10 escape taxation. II
SO a better measure OF equality would
have been attained than would be other
wise possible. since, according TO the ar
guments for the government, the rule OF
equality Is not prescribed by the consti-
ton as TO Federal taxation. and the OBJ
servance of such a rule. inherent In all
just taxation. is purely matter OF legis-
fative discretion.
III It be true that the constitution
should have been framed so that a tax
OF the kind could DC laid. the instrument
defines the way for it's amendment In
no part OF Il was greater sagacity dis
played Except that no state without its
consent can be deprived OF its equal suf-
frage in the senate. the constitution may
be amended upon the concurrence OF two
thirds OF both houses and OF the legisla-
lures OF two-th.rds Of the states. Tho
ultimate sovereignty may ne thus called
into play by a slow and deliberate pro-
cess which gives time for mere hypothesis
70 exhaust itself and the sober second
thought OF every part Of the country TO
he asserted"
Being of the opinion that so much OF
the sections OF this law as lays tax on
income from real and personal property is
invalid. we are brought TO the question OF
the effects OF that conclusion upon these
sections as whole. Il Is elementary that
the same statutes may be in part consjitu-
tional and in part unconstitutional and.
~ the parts are wholly independent OF each
other. that which IS constitutional may
stand. while that which Is unconstitu-
xlonAi VIII be rejected. And IN the case
before US there Is no question as TO the
validity OF this act. except sections = TO
s. inclusive which relate 20 The subject
which has been under discussion. and as
70 them we think the rule laid down by
Chief Justice Shaw IN Warren vs.
Charleston Is applicable. that Y the
different parts are so mutually
connected with and dependent on each
other as conditions. considerations or
compensations for each other. as 10 war
rant A belief that the Legislature Intend
ed them az whole, ana that ~ all can
not Re carried into eject the legiSiau ire
would not pass tire residue lnde0e nient-
IN. and some parts are constitutional. all
the provisions which are thus dependent.
condition.! or connected must fam with
them or. a. the point Is put ny Nir
Justice Matthews iu p0indeNter vs..
Greenhowe. ft is undoubtedly true that
there nav be cases where one part Of a
statute may he enforced as constitution
al. and anothershe declared Imperative
ard void because Unconstitutional hut
these are cases where the parts are 81
distinctly separate that each can stand
alone and where the court IS
able 30 see ana declare that
the intention ~ tire legislature was that