The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-05-21

views OF those who framed and those who
! adopted the constitution are considered.
We do not care TO retras-el ground al
I ready traversed. but some observations
may be added"
The chief justice then reviewed the his
/ tory OF the struggle in the constitutional
I convention as to the power to be granted
the government in the matter Of having
taxes; the views of early constitutional
writer's and expounders. and the early
decisions Of the court and continued: THE
constitution prohibits any direct tax un-
less Ia proportion to numbers as ascer-
tanned by the census, and in the light of
the circumstances to which we have
referred is It not an evasion Of that pro-
hibition to hold that a general unappor-
toned tax imposed upon all personal prop
erty owners as body, for or In respect
Of their property is not direct. in the
meaning of the constitution but confined
TO the income therefrom?
Whatever the speculative views of the
political economists or revenue reformers
may be, can 1t be properly held that the
constitution, taken IN its plain and OBJ
vious sense, and with due regard to the
circumstances attending the formation
of the government, authorizes a general
unappOrtioned tax on the products of the
farm and the rents of real estate, al
though imposed merely because of owner
ship. and with no possible means of es-
totally different class from that which in
cludes the property from whence the in
come proceeds?
There can be no answer unless tho con-
stitutional restriction is to be treated as
utterly illusory and futile and the object
of its trainers defeated.
I'VE find II impossible to hold that
fundamental requisition, deemed so i'm,
portant as to be enforced by two provis-
ions, one affirmative and one negative, can
be refined away by forced distinctions be-
tween that which gives value to property
and the property itself.
Nor can we perceive any ground why
the same reasoning does not apply to cap
ital in personally held for the purpose Of
income or ordinarily yielding income and
to the income therefrom. All the real es-
tate Of the country and all its invested
personal property are open to the direct
operation of the taxing power If an ap,
portionment 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. IL forbds all unap-
pOrtioned direct taxes; and we know OF
no warrant for excepting personal proper
" from the exercise of the power or any
reason why an apportioned direct tax
cannot be laid and assessed. as Mr.. Gal
latin said in his report when secretary OF
the treasury in 1872 upon the same OBJ
jects of taxation on which the direct taxes
levied under the authority of the state are
laid and assessed.
''The stress Of the argument is thrown 7
however. on the assertion that an income
tax Is not a property tax at all; that II is
not real estate tax or a crop tax, or n
bond tax; that il is an assessment upon the
tax payer on account Of his money-spend-
ing power as shown by his revenue for the
year preceding the assessment; that rents
received, crops harvested, interest collect
ed, have lost all connection with their ori-
gin, and although once not taxable have
become Transmitted in their new form into
taxable subject-matter; in other words
that income is taxable irrespective of the
source from whence 1t Is derived.
IF it were the fact that there had been
no income tax law such as this, at the
time the constitution was framed and
adopted, II would not be of controlling inn
portance. 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. AS Chief Justice Mar
shall said in the Dartmouth College case: |
1t is not enough to say, that this partic-
ular case was not in the mind of the con-
vention, when the article was framed, nor
Of the American people, when ii was adopt
ed. 1t is necessary to go further. and to
say that had this particular case been sug-
varied, as to exclude It, or it would have |
been made special exception The case |
being within the words of the rule must be !
within its operation likewise, unless there |
be something in the literal construction so
obviously absurd. or mischievous, or re-
pugnant to the general spirit of the instru- |
ment, as to justify those who expound the I
constitution in making II an exception.
Being direct, and therefore to be laid |
by apportionment, is there any real diff |
Guilty in doing so? Cannot congress, II |
the necessity exist of raising thirty, forty, |
or any other number of million dollars |
for the support Of the government in adj |
dition to the revenue from duties, impOsts /
and excises, apportiOn the quota of each /
state upon the basis of the census and /
thus advise it 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 personal property or the |
income of all persons in the state and /
collect the same IL the state does not in 4
the meantime assume and pay its quota |
and collect the amount according to its |
own system and in its own way? Incon,
veniences might possibly attend the levy
of an income tax, but that it is apportion- |
able is hardly denied, although IT is as
serted that II would operate so uneoually
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 NAV be
believed TO be a reform of it's fiscal and
system. Questions of that
character belong to the controversies Of
political parties and cannot be settled bv
judicial decision. In these cases our proy-
Ince is to determine whether this income
tax on the revenue from property does
or does not belong to the class of direct
taxes II il does, it is. being unappor
toned. in violation Of the constitution and
we must so declare.
Differences have often occurred in this
court-diffeTences exist now--but there
has never been time in Its history when
there has been a difference of opinion az
10 it's duty to announce its deliberate
conclusions unaffected by considerations
not pertaining to the case in hand.
According TO the census, the true valua-
ion of real and personal property in the
United States In 1850 was $50, ,0g7, ,091. 1877. Of
which real estate with improvements
.hereon made up $50. ga, ,544, 1888.
"Of course, from the latter must be de-
iucted in applying these sections. all un-
productive property and all property whose
let yield does not exceed $4,000, but even
With such deductions, IL is evident that
fr,- a ]