New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-15

f. Is commonly presumed ihat me supreme
Court will sustain Nh" conStutionalIty "f mo
income tax This l. not because majority OF
m. Judge, have expressed any opinion, or III
r,liiical auicccdcnts lean in that directlon' nor
- u because the weight OF argument AT the
hearing lust closed has been on that s.d" II Is
n, disbursement of the distinguished men Wh"
,od,.lyorcd 10 sustain The tax 10 say mat they
,,,r, heavily ovcrWrlchtcd IN ia" dlScuNSl"ll
and II they made the best posN.hl" 'a>" th"F
,.ull w,r, vet unable 10 meet III" objections
ur,..d except hy one line II reasoning ms j.
the ground upon which. it Is supposed. the court
will decide. in favor Of the Law. II al all namely
that tine question has already been decid'd ny
the court mere than once, and 1t mas been h'ld
that au income tax is not direct tax Wlthh
me-, meaning II The constitution
The higher courts are extremely reluctant ana
,r,n.rIy to reverse. their decisions. II Is I'M
por.ant 10 the welfare u society that the funda-
mental law should not be- ever varying con
s,rurd one way to-day and another tomorrow
with the Shiflings Of public opinion or political
r,rtios But the reason for this wise cohSerVa-
,ism does not apply TO this case. There has
I., m, income tax for many years. Reversal
Of the former decision in this matter would
h,.,J upon the former construction of the Con
.,itu,iou As to the interest and rights Of all
citizens. It is exactly the same aS If the qlleS-
uon had come up for the first time, ana the
court has opportunity before the law can go
into effect to decide rs to its consttutionality.
The Supreme Court has reversed It's own de
cision i'm matters Of the highest Importance.
Two instances are by everybody remembered.
IL, Isr fha IL
tlou and rs TO the issue of lcgaltcndcr notes.
In both eases the reversal of the former con
strIlcton directly affected vast pccuniary IN
trrcstS contracts without number. ana III"
rights and claims Of millions. There was in
nnitcl; more reason in either of these cases for
holding 10 the conservative rule stare dccisis.
on the ground that reversal would work hard
ship To millions who had based action on a
! prcvio construction Of the constitution. than
there can hc In this ease, where no such In
! trrcStS are To be- affected. In The grccnbacl,
| case the reversal was confidently expected,
and So speedily followed the decision against
| the lcgalcnder law, that the practical effect
was not very great, hut the effect rs 10 the
dignity of the court and the sanctity of It's de-
csions was UNNECESSARILY greater than II would
bc now it, having opportunity 10 revise the
somewhat hasty inference Of a century ago and
to treat the question rs new one without
prejudice TO any interest. the court should hold
| the incom" tax unconstitutional.
The arguments have pointed out some wcghty
reasons for objection To- the new law. moreover
apart from iii" question whether any income
tax is prohibited lS being direct tax. one o
/ these Is that the exemptions are of such a char
| actcr rs to make the tax essentially sectional
and also essentially commuuistic The cXclii
sion of all persons who have not an income sucl
as represents property worth from SS0OOo IL
$13O.0OO makes the law In effect spoliatioI
| If Il few States for the benefit ~ the rest ant
the Spollaton of The wealthy for the bcnclit %
| those who have less wealth or none This oh
| lection has great force even il il be- Conc,d't
/ that II small income such would sitlic" fol
the household necessities of the average citizen
might with proprirty be exempted The roo
of the objection here is that the nature of th'
! exemption In the law recently passed change
the very character of the law and makes It, no
an act for equal taxation Of the people. bui III
act for Spoation. both sectional and coininli
nStc Whether these and other arguments VII
| prevail against the naturally strong dlSposltioi
Of the court not even Ia appear Ia reverse pas
decisions Is uncertain, but the eminent counse
who have presented the argument against N