Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1895-05-23

have been Que>uoned) regarded the
carriage tax bill rs unconstitutional.
The FederallSt was then quoted from
to show that Hamilton considered all
internal taxes, except duties and eN-
ci>eS on articles Of consumption 10 be
direct taxes Hamilton, the opinion
says, supported the carriage law,
which Madison opposed because he re-
Eardei it us an excise Justice Chase,
it is said, thought the carriage tan
was 4 tax on expense, because on
conSuuahie commodity, and express
~ declined to give an opinion As to
what were the direct taxes contcm-
plated by the constitution"
The opinion then diSmissos the llyl-
ton case With this comment: what
was decided in the lIytor case was
that tax on carriages was an excise
and therefore an indirect tax.
The opinion next took up the argu-
ment that tax ON property is not 4
direct tax within the meaning Of the
constitution, and on this Point it says:
"rhe constitution prohibits and direct
tax, unless in proportion To numbers
as ascertaned by the census; and in
the light of the circumstances to which
we have referred, il is not an evasion
of that prohibition to hold that gen
eral lmapportirucd tax imposed upon
all property owners as a body for or in
respect of their property is not direct,
in the meaning of the constitution. be-
cause confined to the income there
from.
"Whatever the speculative views Of
political economists or revenue re-
formers may be, can it be properly
held that the constitution taken in its
plain and obviouS sense, and with due
regard to the circumstances attending
the formation of the government, au-
thorizeS Il general unapportioned tax
on the products Of the farm ard the
rents of real estate. although imposed
merely because of ownership and with
no possible means of escape from pay
ment. as belonging to Il totally differ
ent class from that which includes the
property from whence the income pro
ceedS?
There can be but one answer, UNI
less the constitutional restriction is to
be treated as utterly illuNory and flu
tile, and the object of its trainers de-
fcatcd. We find it impossible to hold
that n fundamental rquisition,
deemed SO important as to be en-
forced by two provisions, one attirma-
tive and one negative, can be refined
away by forced distinctions between
that which gives value to property, and
the property itself.
Nor can we perceive any ground
why the same reasoning does not APP
ply to capital in personality for the
purpose of income or ordinarily yield
ing income, and to the income there
from. All the real eN,Hte of the coun-
try, and all its invested personal prop
crty are open to the direct operation
of the taxing power of an apporliOn-
mcnt made according to the ConStim-
ton, The constitution does not say
that no direct TAX shall he laid by ap-
portionment, an any property than
land, on the contrary ii forbidS all UNI
apportioncd direct taxes: ana we know
of no warrant for excepting personal
property from the exercise of the
power, or any reason why an appor
toned direct tax cannot be laid and
assessed. as Mr.. Gallatin said in his
report when secretary of the treasury
in 1872. upon th" same objects Of tax
alton on which the direct taxes levied
under the authority of the state are
laid and assessed
"NOr are we impressed with the ar
gumcnt that because in the four in
stances in which the power of direct
taxation has been exercised, congress
did not see fit for reasons of eXpcdi-
cucy, to levy Il tax upon personality,
that this amounts to such Il practical
construction of the constitutions; that
the power did not exist. that we must
regard ourselves bound by it. We
should regret to be compelled to mold
the powers of the general government
thus restricted and certainly cannot
aCccde to the idea that the ConStitu
ton has become weakened by par
ticular course of inaction under it.
The stress of argument is thrown,
however, on the assertion thai an in
come tax is not property tax, nor a
crop tax, nor bond tax; that it is an
assessment upon the taxpayer OH ac-
count Of his money spending power,
IS shown by his revenue for the year
preceding the assessment; that rents
received. crops harvested interest col
lectcd have lost all connection with
their origin, and although once not
taxable, have become transmitted into
taxable subject matter; in other words
that income is taxable irrespective Of
the source from whence il j. derived.
The chief justice said thai since the
court had held unanimously that The
receipts from municipal bonds could
not lie taxed because the bonds were
instruments Of the states, the same
rule applies to revenue from other
sources not subject to the tax, and
The lack Of power to leyy any bur an
apportioucd tax on real and personal
I'll. ,,it No. .t4t. = I'm