New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-08
INCOME TAX ARGUMENTS.
Coutinued from First Page.

objection on the ground that IL WIS u'i"'''
stir I'D possible discomfort in the State. 1"
1898 a stamp act was passed. said MT WHIT
new which presented definition upon the sub
feet that was worthy Of some consideration
because It came from the chairman Of the
Coun,,ttee on Ways and Means-Wiam
Smith Of South Carolina. He said that the
,ox was not subject TO the objection against
both direct and indirect taxes. for the re"so"
that II was a duty.
FORMER DECISIONS OF THE COURT
This review OF the legislation and dcpa'es
OF Congress. extending from 1890 to l7sS' MI
Whitney said. would close that portion vi MS
address In exposition OF the historical evidence
unon the meaning OF the words direct taxes
and duties" and he would next proceed to d's-
cuss the decisions OF the court. Upon this point
he said that great weight should be gwen 10
.verv principle clearly and deliberately Iaiu
down nv the court although not necessarily
involved In the decision. The doctrine OF stare
decisis should have It's EXTREMIST extension III
cases involving the fundamental principles u
taxations The necessity for the app"c"''o"
of the doctrine was never greater IMAM !" '"o
present case 1t would be n National disaster
II Congress could not. In times OF suuue"
stress rely implicitly, not only on the PIo'"'7
ruling, but on the principles and dehhi''o"S
deliberately enunciated by this court.
Taxation. Mr.. Whitney continued whether IN
times OF war or times of commercial crises mus
bs extensive and complicated. and must look 70
the past rulings OF this court for the limits OF us
authority If these rulings are INDEFINITE anu
indicative Of doubt, II is misfortune. but il
this court bv unanimous opinion, delivered in an
authoritative manner and with apparent intent
70 settle forever a line of distinction. defnes
Congress must necessarily rely on them ara
must necessarily frame its revenue legislation
accordingly Congress cannot look into the rec
ords and briefs to see whether all possible sus-
vestions were made to the Court, or whether the
arguments were put with sufficient force IL Is
respectfully submitted that the responsibility lor
an erroneous decision in this regard must De
placed upon the Justices who concurred IN the
decision, and not upon their successors IN d a'ei
decade generation or century.
7, is further submitted that whether or not the
taxes under consideration are laid in time OF
actual war should not affect the construction Oh
the constitutional clauses. These draw no dls-
tinction between war and peace. nor can an!
distinction be carried into practicai erect IL
was established in the time Of Chief Justice
Marshall that If the means selected D! congress
ore nroner. Congress Is the judge of their ncces-
proper In peace is it proper when war Is I'M
pending? How much probability OF war Is re-
ouired to give Congress the necessary au'hon'y :
How soon after the war is over must 1t cease?
THE sCHOOLEY CASE CITED.
The Schooey case raising the question OF the
validity Of the succession tax laid by the act OF
1864. was dwelt upon at length by MI "m'ney
IN his review Of the decisions by the Supreme
icah
hand. He said:
No .ax ia more direct IN the sense OF being un-
shiftabe than the tax on the succession to real
estate. II falls entirely on the successor ana no'
an anyhody else IT. however. the distinction De-
tween a direc, tax and duty. within the mean
ing OF the Constitution. depends on whetner the
tax is laid directly on the land or laid upon some
person or transaction in respect OF the lahu.
men and in that case only. is the succession tax
indirect The decision OF the Court was pre-
cisely and ndisputably this. that tax levied on
a nerson by reason OF his acquisition or land Is a
direct tax on the person and an indirect tax Only
on the land although II is measured by the total
value OF the land. although II could be shfted 10
no other person and. although. II II is not pald,
The land itself may be taken 10 pay IL under the
statute -, !.
self as counsel for the taxpayers strenuously In
sisted. The income tax is not The succession
tax was measured by the value OF the land The
Income tax has no relation either to the selling
value the rental value or often even 10 the stlpu-
hated rental The succession tax falls upon the TAX
0ayer on the moment when he bee 1mes the owner
Of the property for whose ownership he Is taxed
The income tax falls commonly upon me maj"
VINO has months before Gold the land whose rent
ais mixed in a mass with his other gross receipts
and then subjected 10 a proportion or his n"c"ssar
expenses. have in part passed undHtingulshei
snto the total OF his net income The decision OF
This court IN the SchoOey case. therefore. aih'ns
The decision Of Mr. Justice Paterson. that II tax
we're construablc either az direct tax or as n
Auty the latter construction should be given II
affirmed the position taken by US mat the Eng
iish legal definitions Of the last century are inc
ones which must govern our consutuloilai n,rr
pretat,on In this regard. And wc respectfully
submit that II is as Observation-Disclosures In principle
from the income tax In It's special relation 10 rent
Ais from land as the Pacific Insurance Com
pany and Springer cases from IN" present Inc ONE
tax regarded as an indivisiblc whole.
REAL ESTATE AND a TAX on RENTALS.
Regarding the Springer case. Mr. Whitney said
that In the law Of 1881 rentals from real estate
were even more intimately bound up than In the
orescnt law He submitted that as the necessary
result OF a clear analysis that a general income
tax IL not void even SO far the rentals therein
are concerned.
Mr.. Whitney considered the question whether
or not tax on rentals was tax on real estate
or on personal property. On this point he re-
ferred TO the case Of Van Rensselaer, against Deni-
son. decided by a NewYork court composed OF
able justices. in which the question arose whether
a special tax on rents was either tax on the land
or tax on the party entitled TO the rents In re-
spect Of the land. In its decision, which MT Whit
ney said covered the question involved In the
pending case, the Court said: THE plaintin was
not taxed for and in respect OF said premises pu'
for and In respect Of the rents reserved thereon
TIE value Of the premises had no influence IN
regulating the amount of the tax. The rent re-
served might be high one on poor farm, or
low one on valuable farm. The farm was never
appraised. nor its values estimated The tax was
laid without reference to the farm, ana IN nc
sense in respect OF the premises or their value
II was the income OF the person which was
taxed at a uniform value. prescribed by the
statute. Suppose a general income tax should
be laid and the plaintiff in this case should be
assnasnd his u,holn inconnc cnu'd he collect Q