Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-05-23
new York EyenInc Post, Nav lath.

The Madison letter published in the |
Evening Post April 18th, 1895, never before |
published, is newly discovered evidence
OF the highest character, being the testi-
mOly of that witness who is now uni |
versally conceded to have stoodiirst in the
world OF the trainers of the Constitution.
1t contains revelation in regard to the
intent and purpose of the term direct
taxes as used in the.Constitution, and in
regard to the understanding of the people
of the United States concerning that term
when they adopted the Constitution; and
what is still more extraordinary. it shows
that the term, in the estimation of the
men who used it, did not refer to the kind,
or character, or nature of the tax itself,
and that the trainers of the Constitution
never considered the subject of taxation
from the philosophical or politico-
economic point of view, but were wrest
ling with the stern necessities of the ques-
ton, how shall the people of these several
States be induced to pay u Federal tax ?
The letter also shows that all the learned
arguments upon the economic questions
what is direct tax, and what is not a
direct tax, and what did the world know
about direct and indirect taxes in 1857,
may be thrown into the waste paper
basket.
On the 10Th of January, 1889 (after the
adoption of the Constitution, but before
the organization OF the new government,
Madison wrote to "Col. q. Thompson"
setting forth his sentiments" in relation
to a proposed alteration ofthe Federal Con-
stitution, and giving his reasons why he
disliked "a change of that part oil it which
authorizes direct taxes" He says to Col
Thompson, in the beginning of the letter.
Should judge amiss, your candour will
excuse the communication. Should !
judge Alright, your discretion will make
proper use of it, Col. Thompson, IN the
plenitude of his discretion did not
. make proper use of it,, and Madison,
apparently, having submitted the question
of publication to Col. Thompson, did not
feel at liberty to publish it himself, and
the letter has remained unpublished until
on the 18th of April last it was brought to
light through Mr.. Warrington Ford.
Here let it be clearly apprehended that
the great question before the Supreme
Court is simply this: What is a direct tax
within the intent and meaning Of the
Constitution? If the income tax is Il
direct tax it must be laid and appurtioned
among the several States in the ratio OF
representation. Massachusetts having, say,
third as many representatives in Con-
gress as New York, the citizens of Massa.
chuetts collectively must pay only one
third as much of the entire income tax as
the citizens of New York, &c, &c. This
superintendent among the States not hay
ing been made in laying the income tax, it
is unconstitutional If it is "a direct tax
direct tax, it does not come within these
restrictive clauses of the Constitution. 1t
has followed, of course, that the forensic
struggle has been to show, on the one
side, that the income tax is in its nature q
direct tax; that it bears directly on the iu-
dividual citizen who pays it,; that il is not an
excise, &c; and on the other side that it
was not tax known to the trainers of the
CONSTITUTIONS that it was not a tax which
they had or could have had in mind when
they used the term direct taxes" and
hence they did not intend to restrict that
kind of taXito distribution among the
states in the ratio of representation. In
other words, it is argued that the re-
striction was intended for certain kinds OF
taxation then know to the trainers speciti,
caly and termed direct taxes"
Madison first alludes to the apparently
Conceded fact that the ordinary expenses
OF the new government would be met by
duties, or by dIties and excuses. Concern
ing the ordinary revenue OF the Fedora
government, therefore, there was then ne
dispute. 1t was provided for. Everybody
knew what duties were and every body
knew better then than everybody know.
now that an excise was an English tuS
laid upon domestic commodity So fai
there was neither state nor sectiuna
jealousy.
But there would be wars and nationa
"emergencies.n Then the future govern
ment would need extraordinary revenues
Blockades might cut of imposts and ever
reduce the ordinary revenue, The nation
already knew by bitter experience what /
cost to carry on war without money an,
without credit How should tins extra
ordinary revenue be provided when tn
day OF necessity should come?
Manifestly it could be raised by but on
of two methods either indirectly, b
acquisitions" on the several States, d
under the still existing cuntederauv, or b,
taxes laid directly by the Federal govern
ment Duties and excuses We're not iii
direct taxes, they were not under discu,
sion or consideration; they were not in M.
case at all. Indirect taxes were taxes pru
cured indirectly by acquisitions on til
States; direct taxes were taxes laid direct!
by the Federal government. The Trainer
OF the Constitution evidently had move
looked at the Subject from q pylllicr
economic point of view; they had uevt
given thought to the phil sOphy of taxi
ton; the term direct taxes AS they use
it, did not refer 10 the kind or character ,
nature of the tax, but 70 the fact that sue
taxes were no longer to be laid indreutl
through acquisitions" upon the state
but directly upon the Taxpayer BY ii
newly constituted taxing power. ludire
taxes would be a thing of the past, OF IL
expiring confederation; taxes directly lai
by the future government would suppl
its extraordinary revenue when needed.
But here State jealousy had entert
into the problem which the Trainers we
solving-the difficult problem Of taiii
power from the individual states al
transferring il to this new, unknown al
distant central authority. If CongrC
could lay tax directly upon the proper
OF the citizens of all the states, might
not be so laid that the citizens Ut Virgin
would have to pay more than the cltizp
of New York? How should the power
transferred be restrained
The convention answered the question
the word population. The new power
direct taxation should be given to Z,
gress, but the system Of quotas with viii
the people OF the country were iamili
should be retained. The inhabitants
Virginia, thereafter as heretofore shot
contribute under this new power Of dir
taxation only the old quota OF the VIII,
amount laid upon all the States +
means would be by the direct taxation
the Federal government thefamuuut
proportlOnl would be precisely what II Ii
been before. The safeguard Of ratio
manned inyiolate, only the agency Of Z
lection changed The power Of direct Ia
tiOn should impose no greater liapll
upon the taxpayer IN any state than
power ot raising money by 'req!is!Jiu
had imposed
But here another element of disc
came IN. Were slaves inhabitant,
property? The previous Limitation m
the direct powers OF taxation was a S.
guard, the next concession was q
promise The slaves, the ''Uthgr person
should be reCkOned at thrGe-litths OF I'll
actual number; and the power Of dit
taxation should be exercised not itera
in the ratio Of population, but III the M
he'd ratio of representation. And he