The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-19
THE oDIOUs INCOME TAX.

| There has been no law enacted by Con-
| gress since the close of the civil war which
has been so universally detested by the
American people as the statute which i'm
poses upon them an income tax This
odium arises not so much because of the
| legal objections TO the law as because it is
opposed to the sense OF right which in a
marked degree the American citizen pos
sesses. The genius of our people protests
against tax upon energy, upon enterprise,
upon brains and upon the faculty of Gre
ating wealth. The burden of two per
cent tax imposed upon the man who
is striving with all his effort TO make
two blades of grass grow where
only one grew before could hardly fail
to be odious to freemen. In war times we
endured an income tax as a war measure
and one of necessity, and when the SUI
preme Court of the United States decided
| that the income tax imposed during the
war was not a direct tax, we accepted a
decision which was not justified by logic,
by history nor by precedent, but only by a
stern necessity. When, however, in time
of peace it is attempted TO enact and en-
force an income tax law more Oppressive
and less uniform than the war measure,
We insist that it is time for the Supreme
Court to reverse its decision, return to the
only logical and reasonable construction of
the constitution and to declare the present
statute void.
That an income tax is a direct tax seems
almost too plain for discussion. The Su-
preme Court has declared that tax levied
upon real estate is direct tax within the
81 ha Eajorol
this be true it should require no argument
to declare that tax upon the rent OF real
estate is a tax upon the property itself.
As Alexander Hamilton well said, what
is property but fiction without the bene-
fetal use of it?" Would an income tax
which absorbed the whole rental, value of
property not be direct tax upon the
property itself, as could well be conceived :?
The present law imposes a tax upon the
rent of real estate. If the Supreme Court
Is true to its own reasoning it must hold
the present income tax law to be direct
tax. To so hold would be to DECLARE the
law unconstitutional, because the tax is
not apportioned among the several States
as the constitution of the United States re-
quires a direct tax to be.
But if the income tax is not a direct
tax it must be an indirect tax and must
be classed as an "excise." As such
the Supreme Court classed it in its earlier
decision. If it is an excise tax, however,
| this law is open to an even more serious
I objection THANH is urged against it as direct
tax. This is its obvious lack of uniformity
The constitution expressly requires I" that
all excuses shall be uniform throughout
/ the United States.''
| By this is plainly intended that it should
bear upon all individuals equally as to its
| burdens. But not such is the effect of the
| present income tax. The person who has
an income of less than $4,000 from his pri-
vate business is required to pay no tax.
| The person who has any income whatever
! from his ownership of stock in corpora
ton must pay tax upon every dollar of
! his income, not directly but indirectly
/ through the tax imposed upon the earn
ings of the corporation itself This is but
| one example of the lack of uniformity in
| this income law. There are dozens Of
other illustrations of the same objection to
which we shall refer. The whole law is net
work OF Inconsistencies and inequalities,
and whatever the Supreme Court may do
with it, no prophetic sense is required to
| foresee the speed with which the next Con-
| gress will expunge it from our statute
! books and set the seal of its condemnation
upon the administration which, among its
other blunders, enacted this odious idea
! into law.
The editor of THE CALL repeats that he
| intends to fight the law to the court of
final appeal. He win not make the
statement required, nor submit to its in
QUESTION, nor pay the tax until compelled
to do SO by the highest tribunal known to