Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-21

ltlCal economists or revenue ftfoImefh
may be can Il be properly held that the
Constitution. taken in It's plain and obvi-
Gus sense. and with due regard to the
circumstances attending the formation OF
the government authorizes a general I'M
apportfoned tax on the products Of the
farm and the rents OF real estate, although
imposed merely because OF ownership and
with no possible means OF escape from
payment. as belonging 10 a totally differ
ent class from that which includes the
property from whence the income pro-
ceeds?
There can be but one answer. unless
the constitutional restriction Is 20 be
treated as utterly illusory and futile. and
the object Of It's trainers defeated.
1--WE find Il impossible to hold that a
fundamental requisitioD. deemed so impor-
tant as TO be enforced by two provisions.
one affirmative and one negative can be
refined away by forced distinctions be-
tween that which gives value 20 property
and the property itself.
Nor can we perceive a good reason why
the same reasoning does not apply TO
capital In personality held for the purpose
OF income or ordinarily yielding income.
and 20 the income therefrom. All the
real estate OF the country and all OF its
invested personal property. are open to
the direct operation OF the taxing power,
N an apportionment be made according
TO the Constitution. The Constitution does
not say that no direct tax shall be laid
by apportionment on any other property
than land, on the contrary IL forDlds all
unappOrtioned direct taxes and we know
OF no warrant for excepting personal pro-
perty from the exercise OF the power. or
any reason why an apportioned direct taA
cannot be laid and assessed. as Mr. Gala
tin said IN his report when Secretary of
. -t
jects OF taxation on which the direct taxes
levied under the authority Of the state
are laid and assessed
1.-THE stress Of the argument is thrown.
however, on the assertion that an income.
tax IS not property tax at all. that IL L.
not real-estate tax, or a crop tax. or
bond tax; that 1t Is an assessment upon
the taxpayer on account Of his money
spending power as shown by his revenue
for the year preceding the assessment:
that rents received. crops harvested. in
terest collected, have lost all connection
with their origin, and although once not
taxable, have become Transmitted in their
new form into taxable subject matter: In
other words, that income Is taxable, ire
spective Of the source from whence ii Is
derived.
"A direct tax cannot be taken out Of
the constitutional rule, because the par
tlfuidi idA bll not tAlSI at the llflt
the rule was prescribed. As Chief-Justice
Marshal said in the College
case. IT Is not enough to say that this
particular case was not I'm the mind OF
the convention when the article was
framed. nor Of the American people when
n was adopted. 1t is necessary 10 90
further. and TO say that had this par
ticular case been suggested the language
would have been 50 varied as to exclude
II, or il would have been made a special
exception. The case being within the
words OF the rule must be within it's
operation likewise, unless there be some
tiang in the literal Constitution so OBJ
viously absurd or mischievous. or re-
pugnant 20 the general spirit Of the in
strument as TO justify those who ex-
pound the Constitution in making IL an
exception
A VEXING QUESTION.
Being direct. and, therefore, to be
laid by apporiionment, there is no real
difficulty in doing so, but can Congress.
II the necessity exists of raising thirty,
forty, or any other number of million
dollars for the support of the government
in addition TO the revenue from duties.
imposts, and excuses, apportion the quota
Of each State upon the basis Of the cen
sus, and thus advise il Of the payment
which must be made and proceed to
assess that amount on all the real and
personal property or the income OF all
persons in the State, and collect the same
If the State does not in the mean time
assume and pay It's quota and collect the
amount according 10 its own system
and In It's own way2
Inconvenience might possibly attend
the levy Of an income tax, but that IL Is
apportionable Is hardly denied, although
II Is asserted that 10 would operate so
unequally as to be undesirable
I'VE are not here concerned with the
question whether an income-tax be or
be not desirable. nor whether such a tax
would enable the government to diminish
taxes on consumption and duties on i'm
ports and TO enter upon what may be
believed 10 be a reform of its fiscal and
commercial system. Questions OF that
character belong TO the controversies Of
political parties and cannot be settled
by judicial decision. In these cases our
province is TO determine whether this in
come-tax on the revenue from property
does. or does not belong to the class of
direct taxes. II il does. il Is. being un-
apportioned. in vain of the Constitution,
and must be so declared.
Differences have often occurred in this
differences exist now-but there
has never been a time I'm its history when
there has been a difference of opinion
as TO its duty 20 announce It's delbera-
tons. It's conclusions, unaffected by cor
siderations not pertaining to the case in
hand.
TAX ON OCCUPATIONS.
According 10 the census. the true valu-
alton of real and personal property in the
United States In 1880 was S6jO37, O9l .1g7. OF
which real estate, with improvements
thereon. add up S39.5i4.5H,33S OF course.
from the latter must be deducted. in APP
plying these sections, all unproduetive
property and all property whose net yield
does not exceed 5000, out even with such
deductions II Is evident that the income
from realty formed a vital part OF the
scheme Of taxation embodied therein. If
that be stricken out, and also the income
from all invested personal property, bonds,
stocks, investments of all kinds. it is
obvious that by far the largest part OF
the anticipated revenue would be elim-
mated. and this would leave the burden OF
the tax 10 be borne by professions, trades,
employments, or vocations, and I'm that
way what was intended as a tax on
capital would remain I'm substance a tax
on occupations and labors. We cannot but
think that such was tbs intention OF Con-
gress.
I'VE do not mean 10 say that an act
laying by appoflonment dlfect-iaN on
all real estate and personal property, or
the income thereof might not also lay
eXcise-taXes on business, privileges, en-
ployments, and vocations. But this is not
such an act, and the scheme must be con-
sldered as a whole. Being invalid as TO
the great part. and falling. as the tax
would. II any part were held valid, In
direction which could not have been con-
templated, except in connection with the
taxation considered as an entirety, we are
constrained 10 conclude thai sections Y
10 81. inclusive OF the act which became
a law without the signature OF the Presi-
dent on August Is. 1884,. are wholly In
operative and void
THE CONCLUSIONS.
"Our conclusions may. therefore, be
summed up as follows;
"FYrst we adhere TO the opinion al,
ready announced. that taxes on reai
estate being undisputably direct taxes,
taves on the rents or income OF real
estate are equally direct taxes.
second. we are OF opinion that taxes
on personal property. or on the income
of personal property. are likewise ul'ee'
taxes - .oo,tors Of
aThird. The tax imposed by sections =
2, 90 "a inclusive, OF the act OF 1874 80
ser a. 4, fails on the income OF real
- - ,oarsonal prOperty, being