The Washington times., 1895-05-21


that the Constitution has become weak
ened by q particular course of inatction un-
der it.
The stress OF the argument is throw wn,
however on the assertion that an income
tax is not n property tax at all; That 1t is
not a real estate tax, or a crop tax, or a
bond tax; that it is an assessment upon the
taxpayer on account of his money spend
ing power as shown by his revenue for
the year preceding the assessment that
rents received, crops harvested, interest
collected have lost all connection with
their origin, and, although once not taxable,
have become transmitted in their new
form into taxable subject-matter; i'll other
words. that income is taxable irrespective
of the source from whence it is derived.
The Chief Justice said that since tile court
had held unanimously that the receipts
from municipal bonds could not be taxed
because the bonds We're instruments of the
State, the same rule applies TO revenue
from other sources not subject To the tax;
and the lacS of po wer TO levy any but an
apportioned tax on real and personal prop
erty equally exists as to the revenue there
FROM The court does not understand, it
SAYS, that the income tax has ever been re-
garded in England as other than a direct
tax.
THE GENERAL ARGUMENT.
A fter this review of cases and consider
alton OF arguments of counsel the court as
it approached its conclusion made the
follow ing general argument:
If it were the fact that there had been
no income tax law, such as this, at the
time the Constitution was framed and
adopted it would not be of controlling inn
portance. A direct tax cannot be taken
| out OF the constitutional rule, because ihe
| particular tax did not ex list ut the time tile
| rule was prescribed.
As Chief Justice Marshall said in the
| Dartmouth College case: Tits not enough
| to say that this particular case was not in
the mind OF the convention, when the ar
ticIe was framed, nor of the American peo-
| pie, when il was adopted 1t is necessary
| to go further, and to say that, had this
| particular case been suggested, the Ian
| guage would have been so varied as to
| exclude it, or it would have special
| exception. The case being within the
words of the rule, must be within its oper-
| alton like wise, unless there be something In
| the literal construction so obviously alb
| surd, or mischievouS, or repugnant TO the
| general spirit of the instrument, as to justi-
| fy those who expound the Constitution in
making it an exception" Wheat, 5lS,-
| CA.
Being direct, aud, therefore, TO be laid
| by apportionmeDt, is there any real dlIfl-
Guilty in doing so? Cannot Congress, If the
| necessitv exists of raising thirty, forty or
| auy number of million dollars for the sup
port of the government in addition TO the
revenue from duties, imposts and excises,
appOrtion the quota OF each State upon the
! basis of the census and thus advise it OF
! the payment which must be made, and pro-
! ceed TO assess that amount on all the real
and personal property or the income OF all
| persons in the State, and collect the same
| if the State does not, in the meantime, as
sumo and pay its quota aud collect the
| amount according Ia its own system and
inits own way? Inconveniences mightpos-
| sibly attend the levy of an income tax, but
! that il is apportonable is hardly denied,
although tits asserted that it would operate
so unequally as 10 be uDdesira bic.
| AN UNAPPORTIONED TAX.
In the disposition of the inquiry whether
a general uuapportioned tax on the income
of real aud personal property can be sus-
| tanned, under the Constitution, it is ap-
parent that the suggestion that the result
| OF compliance with the fundamental law
would lead 10 the abandonment OF that
| method of taxation altogether, because of
inequalities alleged to necessarily accom-
| pany its pursuit, could not he allowed TO
| influence the conclusion; but the suggestion
not uunaturally invites attention To the
/ contention of appellants counsel, that the
want of uniformity and equality in this act
is such as TO invalidate it.
And figures drawn from the census are
| given, showing that enormous assets oi
| mutual insurance companies; of building
associations; OF mutual savings banks
| large productive property OF ecclesiastica
| organizations are exempted and that The
| exemptions reach so many hundred millions
that the rate of taxation would perhap:
have been reduced one half if they had not
a ~ IA
act from that point of view; but, assuming
the data to be substantially reliable, if the
sum desired to be raised had been appOr
toned, it may be doubted whether an.
state, which paid its quota and collected
the amount by its own methods, would, o.
could, under its constitution, have allowed
a large part OF the property alluded to tc
escape taxation.
If so. n better measure OF equality woulC
have been attained than would be other
wise possible, since, according to the argu
ment for the Government, the rule ol
equality is not prescribed by the Constitu
ton as to federal taxation, and the obsery
ance of such a rule as inherent in all just
taxation is purely matter of legislative dis
cretion.
MERITS OF AN INCOME TAX.
Elaborate argument is made as to the
efficacy and merits of an income tax II
general, as on the one hand, equal ant
just, and on the other elastic and certain
not that it is not open to abuse by suci
deductions and exemptions as might MAKE
taxation under it so wanting in unlformlt!
and equality as in substance to amount L
deprivation of property without due pro
cess of law; not that it is not open to frauC
and evasion, and inquisitorial in its meth
DDS: but because it is pre-eminently ia
upon the rich, and enables the burdeG
taxes on consumption and of duties or
ports to be sensibly diminished.
And it is said that the United States,
1.-The representative of an indivisible nat. i
aIity, as a political sovereign equal in au
thority to any other on the face of thC
globe, adequate to all emergencies, foreigl
| or domestic, and having at its comman'
for offenSe and defense and for all govern
mental purposes all the resources of the ma
ton" would be but manned and Grip
pied creation after all,'' unless it possesse
the power to lay a tax on the income o
real and personal property throughout tn
United States without apporttonment.
The power to tax real ana personal prop
erty and the income from both, through
apportionment, is conceeded; that such 6
| tax is a direct tax in the meaning OF the
| Constitution has not been and, in ouI
Judgment, cannot be successfully denied
and yet we are thus invited TO hesitate IL
the enforcement of the mandate of the
Constitution, which prohibits Congress from
laying a direct tax on the revenue IRON
property of the citizen without regard tC
State lines, and in such manner that the
States cannot intervene by payment IL
regulation OF their own resources, lest {
government of delegated powers should b'
found to be, not less powerful, but les
absolute, than the imagination of the advo
cate had supposed.
We are not here concerned with tn
question whether an income tax be or b
not desirable, nor whether such Ia,
would enable the government to Diminish
taxes on consumption and duties on i'm