The herald., 1895-05-21

! tionment of direct tax on subject mat
| ter having general distribution among
the states. They never contemplated
anything as direct tax but that lad di-
rectly upon property itself according to
valuation or assessment. No intention
could be attributed to the trainers OF the
constitution to make any tax direct tax
which it was possible to apportion. III IA
tax coulu not be apportioned among sew
eral states with reasonable approximation
to equality to all citizens OF the country,
that should be evidence that i6 was not
a direct tax within tho meaning of the
constitution. What is to be the end OF the
application of this rule, this new rule
adopted by the court? a tax is laid by
the general government against all the
money on hand or on deposit upon every
citizen of the country at given rate.
when laid few parties come before
the court and say. NV deposits were
derived from the proceeds OF farm pro-
duce or from bonds and securities, and
they are not therefore taxable by this
law In my judgment the principle an
nounced in this decision practically de-
stroys the power of the government to
reach incomes. There is no real differ
ence between changing the existence of
the power to tax incomes from real and
persoJal estates and attaching such
conditions and requirements to its exer-
else as will render it impossible or in
cuDuDle OI any DTuttlCul OpciatiOis lOu
might Just as well strike az the power TO
reach incomes from the sources indicated
as to attach these conditions of apportion-
ment which no legislature can undertake
to adopt and which can be forced with no
degree OF equality in taxation, but the
further principle that in the imposition
OF taxes, the burdens should be imposed
upon those having the most ability to
bear them. This decision works out a di-
rectly opposite result IN relieving the
citizens having the greater ability, while
the burdens of taxation are made to fall
most heavily and oppressively upon
those having the least ability. Con nsidered
in all its bearings. the decision is TIE
most disastrous blow ever struck at the
constitutional power of congress. 1t
strikes down an important portion of
the most vital, essential power OF the gov
eminent in practically excluding any re-
course to incomes from real and personal
estates for the purpose of raising needed
revenue to meet the governments wants
and necessities under any circum-
Stances
Justice Jackson finished at 80 and
was followed by Justice Brown.
Justice Brown, in his dissent. says
''If the question what is and what is not
O direct tax were now for the first time
presented. | should entertain a grave
doubt whether, in view OF the definition
of direct tax given by the courts and
writer's on political ecocnomyH during
the present century, it ought not to be
held to apply not only to an income tax,
but to every tax the burden of which is
borne Immediately and ultimately by the
person paying it, He regards it as very
clear that the clause requiring that direct
taxation be appotriontcd as to the popu-
latlon has no application to taxes which
are not capable of apportionment accord
ing to population. 1t could not be sup
II Asl .N,t4,
contemplated partial inhibition upon
the power of congress to tax in some way
all taxable property within the lurisdic-
ton of the federal government for the
purpose of national revenue.
Justice Brown said in confusion: RE
spect for the constitution will not be in
spireu by narrow and technical decision
which shall limit the narrow power of
congress. The decision involves nothing
less than the surrender of the taxing
power to the money class.
'While | have no doubt that congress
will find some means OF surmounting the
present crisis. my fear is that in some
moment of national peril this decision
will rise up to frustrate its will and para
I'VE its arm. | hope it may not prove
the first step towards'the submergence of
the liberties of the people in sordid des-
potism of wealth"
In Justice W ties dis cnting opinion
the justice stated hisz$yiews briefly.
From first to. last, he SAID. the opinion of
the ma jority of the court was but series
of contradictory propositions. one eating