The Washington times., 1895-05-21
INCOME TAX DECISION
Continued from First Page.

power 10 tax the source, ana no Teier"hCe
was made TO the nature of the tax as being
direct or indirect.
FIELD OF ENQUIRY BRoADENED.
We are now permitted TO broaden the
field uf inquiry aud determineto which of
the two great classes a tax upon a persons
entire income, whether derived from rents
or products. or othcrwi OF real estate, or
from bonds, stocks, other forms of per-
sonal property, hclougs; and we are un-
able to conclude that the enforced subtrac-
tion from the yield of all the owners real
or personal property, in The manner pre-
st.ribed, is so different from a tax upon the
uropcrty itsCaf, that il is not direct Tut
an indirect TAX, in the meaning of the Con-
stitution.
The words of the Constitution are to be
taken in their obvious sense, and 10 lave
a reasonable construction. In Gibbons aSt.
ogden, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, with
his usual felicity, said: "A S men whose
intentions require no concealmcnt generally
employ the words Which most directly and
aptly express the ideas they intend TO con
vey, the enlightened patriots who framed
our Constitution aud the people who
adopted il must bc understood To have en-
ployed words in their natural sense, ana 10
have intended what they have said.
We know OF no reason for holding other
wise than that the words direct taxes,
on the one hand, and duties, lmppsts ana
exciscs,' on the other, were used III the
Constitution in their natural and obvious
sense; nor, in arriving at what those terms
embrace do we perceive any GROUND for
enlargiug them beyond or narrn wing u'em
within their natural and obvious import at
the lime the constitution was framed and
ratified
And, passing from the text, We regard the
conclusion reached as inevitable, wien the
circumstances which surrounded the cen
yentiou and controlled its action and the
views of those who framed and those who
adopted the Constitution are considered.
We do not care To reIraycl ground al
ready trayersed, but some observations
may be added.
HISTORICAL REFERENCES.
In the light of the struggle in the conven-
tion as TO whether the new nation should
be empowered to levy taxes directly Oh the
Individual until after the States had failed
to respond to requisitions, struggle which
did not terminate until the amendment
to that effect, proposed 10y Massachusetts
and concurred in by South Carolina, New
Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island,
had been rejected, it would seem beyond
reasonable question that direct taxation,
was purposely restrained to apportion-
ment according TO representation, in order
that the former system as TO ratio might DE
retained, while the mode of collection " as
changed.
This is forcibly illustrated by a letter of
Mr.. Madison of January 20, 1889, recently
published. written after the ratification OF
the Constitution, but before the organiZa-
ton OF the government and the submission
of the PROPOSED amendment TO Congress,
which, while opposing the Amendment as
calculated to impair the power, only TO De
exercised in "eXtraordnary emergencies,
assigns adequate grounds for its rejection
as substantially umnece ssary, since, he
saws, every State which chooses 10 col
lect its own quota may always prevent
a Federal collection 10y keeping little
beforehand in its finances and making
its payment at once into The Federal teas
ury."
REASONS FOR DIRECT TAXATION.
The Chief Justice next discussed the rea-
sous for the constitutional provisions re-
gardlug direct tax alton. The States had
plenary powers of taxation, he said, but
gave up the great Sources OF revenue de
rived from commerce, and retained the
power of leYying taxes and duties covering
ANYTHING other than eXcises. but i'll respect
to them the range oftaXation was narrowe cd
by the power granted TO the Federal
Government over interstate commerce
While they grauted the power Of appor-
tIoniTGg direct taxation they secured TO the
States the opportunity TO pay the amount
apportloued and TO recoup from their Owl
citizens in the most feasible way. The Con
stitution ordained affiTInativcly that repre-
sentation and direct taxes should he ap
portioned among the several states accord
ing To numbers and negatively that no III
rect tax should be laid otherwise. The
founders anticipated that the expenses OF
the Federal Government would be met chief
! IL by indirect taxation. Tney knew thai
! the power to tax involved the power Il
! destroy. The opinion continued: 1t II
/ said that a tax on the whole income %
! property is not a direct tax, but a duty
| We do not think so. Direct taxation was
not restricted in one breath, and the re
strictiou blow n TO the winds in another"
The Hylton case was again reviewed anC
! the opinion given that Madison ami Hanil
ton (whose Views have been questionedl re-
garded the carriage tax bill as uuconstitu
| tional. The Federalist was then quoted
| from to show that Hamilton considered al
| internal taxes, except duties and excise
on articles OF consumption, 10 be direc
taxes. Hamilton, the opinion says, sup
/ ported the carriage law, which Madison op
! Justice Chase, it is said, thought the car
riage tax was a tax on expense, because
on a cousumablc commodity, aud express
! ly declined Ia give an opinion as To Wha
were the direct taxes contemplated by th'
/ Constitution
The opinion then disnIisses the Hyltol
case with this comment, What was de
cided in the Hylton case, was That ta'
on carriage was an excise, and therefor
! an indirect tax"
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.
The opinion next took up the argunrcIr
that tax on property is not a direct tao
within the meaning of the Constitution
and on this point says:
The Constitution prohibits any direc
tax, unless in proportion 10 numbers, al
asccrt aimed 10y the census; and, in the ligiI
| of the circumstances 10 which we have re
| ferred is il not an evasion of that prohibi
ton TO hold that a general unapportioneC
| tax imposed upon all property owncrs as ;
| body for, or in respect Of, their property IL
not direct, i'll The meaning of the Constitu
ton, because confined to the income there
| from?
Whatever the speculative views of po
| litical economists or revenue refouner
may be, can it be properly held that tin
! Constitution, taken in its plain and obviou
sense, and with due regard to the circum
stances attending the formation of tht
| government, authorizes general unappoI
toned tax on the products OF the farm ant
| the rents of real estate, although inposeC
| merely because of ownership and with nt
! possible means of escape from payment, at
belonging 10 q totally different class from
that which includes the property from
whence the income proceeds?
| There can be but one answer, unless The
| constitutional restriction is TO be treated
as utterly illusory and futile, and the OBJ
ject of its trainers defeated. We find il
| impossible to hold that fundamental
requisition, deemed so important as 10 bt
enforced by two provisions, one affirmative
and one negative, can be refined away b,
| forcad distinctions between that WbiCl