The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-20
INCOME TAX.
(Contipued from Page H.

ment at once INTO tne iooefa .roasufy'
The chief justice next discussed the
reasons for the constitutional provisions
regarding direct taxation. The opinion
next took up the argument that tax on
property is not a direct tax within the
meaning of the constitution, and on this
point says;
"The constitution prohibits any direct
tax, unless in proportion in numbers as
sscertained by the census, and in the
light Of the circumstances to which We
have reference, is it not an evasion of
that prohibition to hold that
general unspportioned tax imposed
upon all property owners, as q body, for
or in respect to their properly is not di-
rect, In the meaning OF the constitution,
but 1t is confined to the income there
from3
"Unless the constitutional restriction is
to be treated as utterly illusory and futile,
and the object Of its trainers defeated, we
find it impossible to hold that .unds-
mental requisi.ion, deemed SO important
as to be enforced by two pro-
visions, one affirmative and one neg
ative, can be refined away by distinct ion
between that which gives value to prop
erty and the property itself. Nor can we
perceive any ground which the same
reasoning does not apply to capital in
personality held for the purpose of
income or ordinary income, and to the
income thersfrom.
There Must BE Apportionment.
GAIL the real estate incomes OF the coun-
try invested in personal property are open
to the direct operation OF the taxing
power il an apportionment be made
according to the constitution.
The constitution does not say
that no direct tax shall be laid by ap-
portionment on any other property than
land on the contrary, it forbids all un-
apportioned direct taxes; and we know OF
no warrant for excepting personal prop
erty from the exercise of the power or any
reason why an apportioned direct tax
cannot be laid and assessed.
"The stress of the argument is thrown,
however, on the assertion that an income
tax is not property tax at all, and it is
not real estate or q crop tax, or bond
tax; that 1t is an assessment upon the
taxpayer on account of his money
spending power as shown by the
revenue for the year preceding the assess
ment; that rents received, crops harvested,
interest collected, have lost all connec-
tion with their origin; and although once
not taxable, have become Transmitted in
their new form into taxable subject-that
income is taxable irrespective Of the
source from whence it is derived"
The chief justice ssid that since the
court had held unanimously that the re-
ceipts from municipaI bonds could not be
taxed because the bonds were instru-
ments of the states, the same rule
applies to revenue from other sources
not subject to the tax, and its lack Of
power to levy any but an apportioned tax
on real and personal property equally ex-
ists as to the revenue therefrom.
The court does not understand, it says,
that the income tax has ever been re-
marked in England as other than direct
tax.
The General Arguments.
The court, as it approached its conclu-
sion, made tho following general argu-
ment:
'lf it were the fact there had been no in
come tax laws such as these, at
| the time the constitution was
framed and adopted, 1t would not be Of
controlling Importance. A direct tax
cannot be taken out of the constitutional
rule because the particular tax did not
exist at the time the rule was prescribed.
"The power to tax real and personal
property and the income from both,
through spportionment, is conceded
that such tax is direct tax
in tho meaning OF the constitution
has not been, in our judgment, cannot be
successfully denied, and yet we are thu,
invited to hesitate in the enforcement
of the mandate OF the constitu-
tion which prohibits Congress from
LAYING direct tax on the
revenue from property of the citizens
without regard to state lines, and in such
manner that the states cannot inter
veno by payment in regulation