The Irish standard., 1895-03-16

purpose OF revenue but for the purpose
Of encouraging domestic producers con-
sumers not only pay the taxes Of the
government but they pay bounty to
those producers. It was system Of
pluck1ng the goose without making it cry
out. The opponents Of the income tax
argue that it is class legislation but it is
great deal easier to see that protec
tive tariff law is class legislation than to
see that the taxation Of accumulated
wealth is such.
All taxes are either direct or indirect.
According to the Constitution Of the,
United States all direct taxes must be
apportioned among the states according
to the number Of inhabitants, and all in.
direct taxes must be uniform. The op
ponents Of the income tax maintain that
it is direct tax and consequently uncon-
stitutional because not apportioned
among the states. They hold also that if
it is an indirect tax, it is not uniform and
consequently unconstitutional.
But it has been repeatedly decided
that a tax on incomes is not direct tax.
The United States Supreme Court in the
case of Veazie Bank vs.. Fenus said:
personal property, contracts, occupa-
tions and the like, have never been re-
garded by Congress as the proper objects
of direct tax
It is admitted that Congresses has the
power to levy tax on incomes, the only
question is as to the manner Of so doing
If Incomes are not the object OF direct:
taxation they must be the object Of indi-
rect taxation. In the case of Hylton VS..
the United States, suit was brought by
the United States against Hylton for
penalty imposed for not paying q duty on,
number Of carriages. The question was
as to whether the tax was direct tax.
This was case of great general interest:
and argued by the best counsel in the
country among whom we're Alexander
Hamilton. Justice Chase said: there are
only two kinds of direct taxes-a capita
ton or poll tax, and tax on lands. A tax
on carriages was held not to be q direct
tax.
As tax on incomes must necessarily
be an indirect tax il follows that the only
requisite is that it shall be uniform.
This does not mean that it must apply to
everybody equally and Unfortunately
but it must apply to all of a particular
class. The tax on carriages was held to
be an indirect tax. 1t was necessary
therefore that it be uniform. This meant
only that it should apply to all who
owned carriages and not all irrespective
Of whether they owned carriages or not.
A tax on all who possess an income OF
$4, 600 is uniform. It is argned however
that certain corporations are exempt.
That is true, yet in our ordinary meth
dds Of taxation we tax some corporations
on their gross earnings, some corpora
tions are exempt such as churches and
hospitals yet this fact does not render all
taxation unconstitutional. There is no
doubt but that the Supreme Court will
hold the law constitutional.
We are not altogether in favor Of an
Income tax. On principle it is much
preferable to q system OF class legisla-
ton Of the nature Of protection. The
one taxes the wealth Of the country
which is able to bear the burden and
does go purely for revenue, the other
taxes the labor OF the country purely for
the benefit Of wealthy monopolies. Our
objection to income tax is that it is i'm
practicable. No means at the command
Of the government have ever enabled it
to arrive at anything like accuracy ct the
incomes Of it's people, and they resist it's
inquiaitions in ell practical modes, not
only because they wish to avoid the bur-
den but because they are not willing
that their private affairs and the meas
.ure Of their prosperity should be exposed
to public view. Yet whom 9 means Of
collecting such q tax e found we believe
il will be favored and just system Of
taxation. It le not new ia this country
Its revival at this time is IA indication
Of our socialistic tendency.
The next thing in order will be IN In
5heritance or succession tax. This method
fof taxation has been tried il this state
and il, We believe, 9 just and constltl 8
tional one when rightly enforced. Under
d system 81 this kind no one would s1lc-
1ceed 10 hi estate Of inheritance without
turning over part of il 80 the state'
That the time will come when sdch win
sbs q law we believe there ii no doubt.
We believe the present legislature should 1
impose 3 succession tax il the &C
whore large estates descend to collateral
Kin, that i ii oass ylhere there are no di-
rect descendants the property should
5escheat Is part To- The state rather than
descend il whole e sonneS tant re1s-
ftion.