New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-21
THE INCOME TAX INTILID.

THE INCOME JIA IN y ILiD
Tho rreat compromises which made the Union
,.ossibl. sill stand mistaken To prevent its over
throw bv communistc revolution The fury 81
IGNORANT class hatred. which has siliiiced to over
| ,urn absolute power in many other lands' ana
oven now renders the maintenance of Govern
mont Of law uncertain in some. has dashed i'Seii
I'm win against the Constitution OF the thi''u
States fortified by the institutions when free
nconl. have established for the defence OF 'hcr
RIGHTS At times apparently The least potent "i
those institutions. the Supreme Court mas De-
hind If only the respect of the people Tor 'heir
laws and more than once has threatened 'h''
resnect by disregard of the spirit OF law III mar
row suhseryience TO thc letter OF proceden'S' p"l
in This instance has grandly vndica'ed ltseii anu
added intellectually to the regard IN whi'h lis ~
cisions are held. For 50 long as the 'onS"'u
n,n. now rightly interpreted. shall stahd aS
barrier against sectional passion ana the mar
chistic hatred Of property. SO lon- VIII al 'o".
s,rvotivo citizens acknowledge their profound
gratitude to the Supreme Court ana 10 'he WIS
1o,, ~ the Justices who concurr,I in the de-
cisiop rendered yesterday. Justice Jackson II
onnears. was led TO uphold the law So that the
differences drawn from his long interview WIFI
tho President were not wholly erroneous. But
Il
with Jus,lccs Field Gray and Brewer In The opln'
ION that taxation If the income of personal prop
cr,v rs we'll as the income of real estate, was
| direct taxation. and without apporti'hH'h'
| among the states clearly unconstitutional The
| ,.,c,nn Inv fin, chief Justice shows that In his
| mind and in the minds Of others forming the
ma iori,v. the fact had great weight that the law
wouu never have been passed. in all probability.
had II been known that the tax on rents OF real
estate could not BE- upheld. II was therefore de-
cded that Section - to 81 those relating 10
an Income tax must stand or fall as a whole, and
all were declared Invalid
| II Is not 10 be expected that an Income tax III
fine OF peace will ever again have as mnch color
OF justification as II had this year IL appealed
| IN renea,ed nd ul cations by the Court. OF which
| ,hc true meaning had not been fully uncovered,
| and TO the tax imposed during the Rebellion
which had been kept In force some years after
| the war had ended. The gross and inevitable
inequality Of an income tax from which all d.
| rect taxes in the proper sense, had been clini-
| mated was never fully perceived, II may be pre-
| s,1med. even by some Of the Justices themselves,
| until the decision against taxation OF rents had
| bcen rendered When II became necessary TO
decide that this glaring nequlty should be per
| petuated or that the law as whole was Invalid,
| II was felt that past decisions could no longer
| be permitted TO rule. 1t Is not denied by the
| Court that taxes on real estate and personal
property may be levied. II first apportloned
among the States according to population. so
| that the General Government may proceed 10
| "assess and collect, II the State does not In the
"mean time assume and pay lis quota and col
"lect the amount according to It's own system
land In its own way" But the language used
clearly recognizes the intention Of the Constt'i-
ton to leave each State to raise according to It's
own system and In It's own way" such amount
as may be apportioncd TO 1t Of taxes upon real
and personal property.
With the force Of precedent thus swept away,
neither Justices nor the people can hereafter ap-
proach the consideration Of an income tax with
the PRESUMPTION in It's favor which has In many
minds existed. But it Is equally true that the
sectional offensiveness Of such legislation has
never until now been clearly exhibited. There are
multitudes Of good citizens in this country VINO
do not mean TO be- but yet at times are, swayed
by sectional prejudice and interest. NO man OK
fair intelligence will hereafter be able to ignore
the fact that All income tax Is device 1or TAX
ing a small section Of the country for the Dement,
OF the rest, and there are many who VIII never
again for very shame be caught supporting a
| measure so UNFAIR, though 1T nrSt tucy yNiu'u
| to feeling the narrow sectiOnasm Of which
they scarcely realized. 1t will not recommend
the tax in future that II the outset brought
forward and to the end ZealOusly defended by
the most un-American Administration ever
known to this country, which has brought dis
grace and defeat upon its party. Nor Will II hep
| such a tax that the Democratic Chief Justice
| the Oldest Democratic Justice, and the abest Oh
Democratic Justices. united In pronouncing un-
constitutional this pet measure OF half-Popul's'
Administration. Wiser by far 1t would have
been in the President IT, after the tax on rentals
had been stricken out, he had caused the law
officers Of the Government TO make no resistance
: to the burial Of tax muilated.
1t Is to be expected that many OF the Populists
will now propose agitation for reconstruction OF
I abolition Of the Supreme Court as the only
means Of imposing tax which the Constitution
2 forbids Their organization and movement arc
, In great part an appeal to sectional preJudiccs
of the West and South. and to the communicate
hatred OF property, so that 1t may seem TO Pop
ust leaders that they have nothing TO lose by
making war on the Supreme Court on behalf OF
: an income tax II was the most dsgraceful feat
IRE Of the hearing before the Court that attorneys
D OF some note were found TO threaten that body
2 with popular vengeance II II declined to subOr
/ dinate the Constitution to demands Of noisy
= demagogues. Bul not even the POpulists could
e fail to lose much In public estimation II they
J. should choose such course. The compromises