Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-12
He Argues for the Validity Of the
Income Tax.
MANY HEAR TEE ATTORNEY GENERAL
He Contends That the Law is Con-
stitutionaI.
EQUALITY OF TAXATION

in the Supreme Court today opened with
argument by Attorney General Olney on
behalf of the government for the validity
Of the tax. The court room inside the bar
was crowded when the court came in at
noon, and there was no time when the
limited seating capacity of the room was
sufficient to accommodate the audience.
The Attorney Generals Address.
Attorney General Olney, in opening. said
the chief interest of the government in
the present litigation was limited to the
constitutional questions which the several
plaintiffs allege to be involved Whether
they are really involved he would not at
tempt to determine.
An examination of the plaintiffs bills
and briefs and arguments seemed to him
to show that many of the alleged objec-
tions to the validity of the income tax are
simply perfunctory in character. "They
are taken pro formally way of precaution
because of the possibility of a point de-
Veloping in some unexpected connection
and just as good equity pleader. be his
knowledge of his case and of the pertinent
remedies ever so thorough, never fails to
wind up with the general prayer for other
and further relief. There is nothing to
criticise, of course, in the plaintiffs pur-
suing that plan. 1t only makes it proper
to sft out at the outset the exact propo-
sitions upon which alone the plaintiffs can
For example, he thought no time need
be spent in discussing the averments that
the income tax law is an invasion of vest
ed rights or takes property without due
process of law. These propositions are
pure generalities and If there is anything
in them it is because they comprehend
others which are the only real subjects of
profitable discussion. Again. suppose 1t to
be true that income tax law undertakes to
ascertain the incomes of citizens by meth
DDS which not only disagreeable, but
are infringementS of personal rights The
consequence is not that the law is void,
but that the hotly denounced inquisitorial
methods cannot be reSorted to- The like
considerations apply to the objection that
the law Is to be pronounced void because
taxing the agencies and fnstrumentalities
of the governments of the several states.
1t has not yet been definitely adjudicated,
and it is by no means TO be admitted that
the income of state and municipal securi-
ties is not taxable by the United States
when assessed as part of the total income
of the owners under law assessing in
come gener ally and not discriminating be-
tween such securities and others of the like
character. But suppose the contrary. The
result is not that the law is bad in toto.
but that 1t is bad only as to the income of
state and municipal securities.
IF 1 am right in these observations" he
continued, the constitutional contention
of the plaintiffs SINNERS down to two
points. One is that an income tax is a
direct tax, and must be imposed according
to the rule of apportionment, and the other
is based upon the alleged violation of the
Constitution with regard to uniformity. l
do not stop to discuss the question what
the constitutional rule of apportionment is.
l do not think 1 ought to delay the court
for any considerable time with the Ques-
ton whether an income tax is direct or In
direct
Not Direct Tax.
He declared that whether an income tax
is what the Constitution describes as a
''Girect'' tax is a question as completely
concluded by repeated adjudications as
any question can be. 1t is not a direct tax
within the meaning of the Constitution un-
less five concurring judgments of this
court have all been erroneous.
Speaking on another point raised by the
appellants, he said no land tax is aimed
at or attempted by the statute-there is
no lien on land for payment-and the
whole scope and tenor of the statute show
the contemplated subject of taxation to be
personal property, and to be nothing else.
1t is quite conclusive on this point that
there is no provision for the valuation and
taxation of unproductive land-a provision
that would certainly be found in the
statute if the object was to make a real
estate tax.
the meaning of the word uniform as
applied to the collection of imposts eN-
ciSeS, etc, declaring that the word had a
territorial application and no other. "A
federal tax, which is not a poll tax nor a
tax on land, must be the same in all Parts
of the country. 1t cannot be one thing In
Maine and another thing in Florida. The
law providing for such a tax must be like
a bankruptcy law or naturalization law.
1t must have the same operation every
where. wholly irrespective of state lines
The power to tax, he said, is for practical
use, and is necessarily to be adapted to the
practical conditions of human life These
are never the same for any two persons
anu, applied to any community, how
ever small, are infinitely diversified.
Equality of Taxation Impossible.
Regard being paid to them, nothing is
more evident, nothing has been oftener
declared by courts and jursts than that
absolute equality of taxation is impossible
is, as characterized in an opinion of this
court, only "a baseless dream No sys-
tenn has been can be devised that will
produce any such result.
The nature of the taxing power offers
little, if any, opportunity for the eXploita-
tion of theories or for experiment with alb
stract generalizationS. 1t calls for the
highest practical wisdom to be applied to
the actual and infinitely varied affairs of a
particular community and people, and in
it's exercise, in the selection of the sub
jects Of taxation, in taxing some persons
and estates and in exempting others, the
legislature is vested with the largest and
widest discretion. 1t by no means follows
that the power to tax is without any linn
that is, as already observed, they result
from the very nature of the power itself
No country, for example, no state Of this
Union, ever adopted a plan of taxation that
did not except some portions of the COM
munity from a burden that was imposed
upon others. The power to do so is unques-
toned and is universally exercised. Never
theess, the power to exempt has bounds
1t cannot be used without regard to the
end in view, nor to crafty a mere whim
or caprice. The rule of uniformity places
no restriction upon any division of the
community into classes for taxable pur-
poses which the legislature may deem
WISE 1t merely declares that the classes
being formed the members of each shall
be on the same footing and shall be taxed
alike, to be exempted alike, without ar
bitrary Determinations in individual cases.
Uniformity between members of class
created for taxable purposes is required
1t is quite beside the issue to argue in this
or any other case that Congress has mis-
taken what public policy requires. On that
point Congress. is the sole and final author
ity, and its decision once made controls
every other department of the government
The statute makes no exemption in favor
of class that is not based on some obvious
line of public policy. and the class being
established one uniform rule is applicable
to its members. Take, fer example, the
principal classifidaticns of all-the grand
division by which the entire population of