The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-20

~ - <1s. 10
The law required. however that three
6fths Of the slaves IN the South should
he counted and 10 this eYtent the slave
holdiuer states had an ad,antage over the
other states in the Union. Now, II can
be readily seen that should Congress de-
sire 20 impose capitation tax II would
necessarily be appOruOned among the
different States according 70 population
and therefore the words, "Or other d.
rect taxes" related 10 a tax on slaves.
The term. direct taxation. cannot be con-
sidered in this connection as II Is used In
common parlance. or as % Is defined in
dictionaries. It had, at the time OF It's
adoption in the Constitution, special
and peculiar significance, and should still
have the same meaning. In the meaning
OF the Constitution, a direct tax is a tax
upon the individual. and not upon his
property or avccation. II has nothing
whatever TO do with property. but Is a
tax upon the head Of the person affected.
Regarded as such. IL fellows that the
words cor other direct taxes" referred
10 a form Of tax similar TO the CapltatiOn
tax, but differing to ills extent, that IL
was 10 be imposed uptn slaves. and as
such would prevent the taxation of slave
property in the South, while the north
ern States had as long as the northern
States were without similar forms OF
property to tax When YOU read the pro-
vision Of the Constitution regarding d.
rect taxes it IS difficult TO see how it
can be given any other meaning.
NOT A LAND TAX.
IL could not relate 10 land-taxes be-
cause land has nothing whatever 10 do
with representation on apportionment
Nor could a tax on la1d be- imposed or
collected ia proportion o the population.
Take for instance a resident of New
y Ork city, who owns loo acres of land
I'm Kansas, and who is not a citizen of
that State. ana could not. therefore. be
taxed for his land in Ksrsas. while at the
same time he may owl nothing in New
York upon which 10 pay taxes II Is alb
surd 10 suppose that tiis idea OF direct
taxation is in any way connected with
the idea Of taxation ard representation
held by the trainers of he Constitution
lEtre is another consideration when
also seems 10 prove tlat the Constitu.
ucn should net be intc -preted in accord
ance with the opinior rendered by the
81 preme Court.
Suppose this couu.rf were TO be al
war with one or more Of the great for
cign powers, and this is not impossible or
improbable, our PORTS WOud be blockaded
ana our revenue from import duties cut
OF entirely. We would then have 10
rely urOn internal taxa tioa. Il is likely
that the founders of the Government
intended TO restrict its powers TO such
an extent that 10 would have no ofher
resOurccs .han am excise tax upon boer
whisky. and patent medicines. 1 think
net. ''''''N
THINKS THE COURT BLUNDrRFD
II Iffrs
ms Diuhdered In this matter and / can
oHly nope mat when Justice jackson
returns ana the matter Is more thorough
considered, the decision will be
changed. ! do not think that with tho
exception OF the civil war. the cavern
inent has ever received such a blow as
~ az contained In the recent action of
.Ne supreme Court. 10 restricts its pover
10 Il" unprecedented extent. and involves
our Whoie system Of taxation ana of
government I'm confusion. VI
AS the matter now stands II ia I'm
possible 10 see what the outcome fs usel,,
80 ~ ~ anu 1he pest We can do is to await
~ 'IeI ueVeiopments. / have no opin-
ION REGARDING the probability Of the re-
@ @peai OF the law. lf The matter is TO
that a rcpai Will be necessary. Bnf no
u''le'on VIII Do a.. -iotarate one for
the country, unless the Justices come IA
lhelr senses. am even inclined ia
doupt the soundness Of their position re-
sdfdlhs the taxation Of State and mn
hicipal bonds, although that question Is
not open TO the same objections as the
direct tax. However. / DO not believe
that state bond IS an instrumentalitv Of
Government. Some time ago. the state
OF Mississippi passed an act repudiatlng
all her bonds. and the act was conssd-
cred legal, and no steps were taken TO
coerce the state into paying these OBJ
legations Yet no one thought that Mis-
sissippi had surrendered any of the in
strumentalities of government TO which.
as state. she was entitled. IT, on
the other hand. these bonds had been
such instrumentalities. then Mississippi
could. with just as much right. abolish
her state form of gOvernment-her Gov
ernor, Legislature, and all State officers
and still remain one Of the states OF the
Union. with fun rights 10 representation
in Congress. a State bond, as soon as
il passes out of the possession of the
State, becomes the private property OF
the individual who purchases 1t. and is
subject TO taxation, just as any other
form of property would be. II ] have
a bond OF the state of Alabama. and lose
or destroy it. the state loses nothing
The loss falls upon me. The possess
sion of bonds by individuals. and the
right OF the State 10 issue them arc dis
tinct in every respect.
NOT An ISsTRr MENTALITY.
The General Government does not look
upon money that it has issued. and
which has subsequently been lost or de
stroyed as one of its instrumentalites Of
Government. IFS loss does not in any
way affect the autonomy of the Govern
ment. nor does it affect its finances.
The individual who had the money and
lost ii must suffer. The Government
would as soon think OF paying for "A lot
of horses destroyed in a fire. as II would
of redeeming money that has been to-
t,TI,r E.afroxqI