Arizona weekly citizen., 1895-05-25

JeDQS tO 6sDaOllsn t0at COuUlGlOu Oh uciP
 lessness in which congress found itself during the period of the articles of con federation, when it was without powers
 by laws operating directly upon lndivid
 uals to levy and collect through it's own agents taxes sufficient to pay the debt and defray the expenses of government, and was dependent in all such matters upon the good will of the states and prom ptness in making the acquisitions
 made upon them by congress.
 ''In its practical operations this decls- ion wlthdraws from national taxation
 not only all incomes derived from real
 estate, but the personal property of the
 whole country-personal property,
 bonds, stocks, investments of all Kinds
 and the income that may be derived from
 such property. This result Is from the
 fact that under the decision of the court
 such incomes cannot be taxed otherwise
 than by spportion ment among the states
 on the bssls simply of population. No
 such apportionment can possibly oe
 made without doing monstrous, wicked
 injustice to the many for the benefit Of
 the favored few iu particular states.
 Any attempt on the part of congress to
 apportion taxes on incomes. taking the states on the basis of their population,
 would and properly ought to arouse
 such indignation among the freemen or
 America that it would never be repeated.
 The American majority has practically
 decided that without an amendment to
 the constitution such incomes can never
 be made to contribute to the support or
 :ha national government.
 "lf this new theory cf the constitution
 as I believe it to be; if this new depart
 ure from the way marked out by the fathers is justified by the fundamental law, the American people cannot too soon amend their constitution.
 "The judgment just rendered defeats
 the purpose of congress by taking out or the revenue not less than thirty millions and possibly fifty millions of dollars ex- pected to be raised from incomes. We know from the official reports of both houses of congress that taxation would not have been reduced to the extent It was by the Wilson act but for the be- lief that if the country had the benefit of revenue derived from tax on incomes that could be safely done. In every possible way the two houses of congress indicated that it must be a part of any scheme for the reduction of taxation and for raising revenue for the support Of the government that (with certain ex> incomes arising from every kind of property and from every trade and callipg should bear some of the burdens of the taxation imposed. If the court knows, or is justified in believing, that congress would have provided an income tax which did not include tax raol fot more justified in believing the Wilson act would never have become law at all without provision being made Tor It ln the income tax. If, therefore, all the | income sections of the Wilson act muet fall because some of them are invalid, does not the judgment rendered furnish ground for the contention that the en- tire act falls when the court strikes from it all income tex provisions, without which the act would never have been 
 "The court takes care to state that there is DO question as to the validity of any part of the Wilson act except those sections which provide for tax on ln- comes. Thus something is stated for the support and maintenance Of the gov- srnmens.
 "The practical If not the dlrect eHect of the decision is to give certain kinds of property position of favoritism and advantage inconsistent with the funda- mental prlnclple of our social orgsniza- tion; to invest them with power and in- iuence that is perilous to that portion | of the people upon whom rests the larger part of the burdens of the government and who ought not to be subjected to the domination of aggregated wealth | any more than the property of the coun- try should be at the mercy of the law ess."