The Wichita daily eagle., 1895-05-21

rect taxation by the trainers or the con-
Stitution, the court said:
THE reasons for the clauses of the
constitution in respect TO direct taxa
ton are not far to seek. The states
respectively possessed plenary powers
of taxation. They could tax the prop
erty of their citizens in such manner
and to such extent as they saw ht; they
had unrestricted powers to impose du-
ties or imposts on imports from abroad
and excises on manufactures, consuma-
bic commodities or otherwise. They
gave up the great sources of revenue
derived from commerce; they retained
the current power Of levying eScises
and duties if covering anything other
than excuses; but in respect TO them,
the range of taxation was narrowed Dy
the power granted over interstate COM
merce and by the danger Of being put
at disadvantage in dealing with excises
on manufactures. They retained the
power of direct taxation and to that
they looked as their chief resource, but
even in respect Of that they granted the
concurrent power, and If the tax were
placed by both governments on the
same subject, the claim Of the United
States had preference.
DIRECT TAXATION AS GRANTED.
Therefore they did not grant the pow
er Of direct taxation without regard TO
their own condition and resources as
states; but they granted the power OF
apportioned direct taxation, power
Just as efficacious 10 serve the needs
of the general government, but secur-
ing to the states the opportunity TO pay
the amount apportioned and to recoup
from their own citizens in the most fea-
sible way and in harmony with their
systems of local self government. Ii,
in the changes of wealth and popula-
ton in particular states, apportionment
produced inequality, it was inequality
stipulated for just as the equal repre-
senta ton of the states, however small,
in the senate was stipulated for. the
constitution ordains affirmatively that
each state shall have two members of
that body and negatively that no state
shall by amendment be deprived Of its
equal suffrage in the senate without
its consent. The constitution Ordains
affirmatively that representatives and
direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several states according to number
and negatively that no direct tax shall
be laid unless in proportion 10 the emu
meration.
WHY so QUALIFIED.
The founders anticipated that the ex-
penditures of the states, their counties,
cities and towns, would chiefly be met
by direct taxation on accumulated
property, while they expected those Of
the federal government would be for
the most part met by indirect taxes.
And in order that the power of direct
taxation by the general government
should not be exercised except on ne
cessity; and when the necessity arose
should be so exercised as to leave the
states at liberty to discharge their re-
spective obligations. and should not be
SO exercised unfairly and discriminate
ly as to particular states or otherwise
by a mere majority vote, possibly OF
those whose constituents were inten-
tionally not subjected to any part of the
burden, the qualified grant was made
Those who made it knew that the
power to tax involved the power to de-
stroy, and that, in the language of
Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only secur
ity against the abuse Of this power IS
found in the structure of the govern
ment itself. In imposing a tax the
legislature acts upon its constituents.
This is in general a sufficient security
against erroneous and oppressive tax
alton" and they retained this security
by providing that direct taxation and
representation in the lower house OF
congress should be adjusted on the
same measure
THERE THEY ARE. ANYWAY.
Moreover, whatever the reasons for
the constitutional provisions. there they
are and they appear to us to speak in
plain language.
1t is said that tax upon the income
of property is not a direct tax in the
meaning of the constitution, but duty
and, as a duty, leviable without appor>
,x-ha iaIiranf
We do not think so. Direct taxation
was not restricted in one breath and
the restriction thrown to the winds In
another.
Cooley ION taxation) says the word
duty" ordinarily means an indirect
tax imposed on the Importation, expor-
tation or consumption of goods" hav-
ing broader meaning than custom.
which is a duty imposed on imports;
that the term ''impost" also signifies
any tax, tribute or duty. but it is sell
dom applied 10 any but the indirect
taxes. An excise duty is an inland i'm
post levied upon articles of manufac-
ture or sale and also upon licenses to
pursue certain trades or 70 deal in GER
tain commodities.
In the constitution the words "duties.
imposts and excuses" are put in an
tithesis to direct taxes.
In this connection it may be useful
though at the risk Of repetition. 10 re-
fer to the views of Hamilton and Mad
ison. as thrown into relief in the pages
of the Federalist and in respect to the
enactment of the carriage tax act, and
again TO briefly consider the Hylton
case, so much dwelt on in argument.
WHEN WAR THREATENED.
The act of June (, 1894, laying duties
upon carriages for the conveyance OF
persons, was enacted in a time Of
threatened war. II was therefore as
much a part of a system of taxation
in war times as was the income tax Of
the war of the rebellion. The bill pass
ed the house on the 29th Of May, ap-
parently after a very short debate. Mr..
Madison and Mr.. Ames are the only
speakers on that day reported in the
annals. Mr.. Madison objected 10 this
tax on carriages as unconstitutional.
and as an unconstitutional measure he
would vote against il.
Mr.. AmeS said il was not TO he Won
dered that he. coming from so different
a part OF the country. should have diff
ferent idea OF this tax from the gentle
man who spoke last. In Massachus
etts this tax had been long known and
there il was called an excise. 1t was
difficult to define whether a tax is dir
ect or not. He had satisfied himself