The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1895-06-13
THE INCOME TAX DECISION.
Serious Asp~ess of IL =. They Appear
STR u. Z fornsy-

man some very seriousxxaspeets First
OF all, that the differences Of epsn
ION among so niaLy supros, i. and
no denb,, IN fact. learned in rhe law.
should be so wide apart IN their con-
struetion Of the constitution. The |
conclusion of the ordinary eiti-
zen, who wants TO believe In the /
law, after il once passes the inspec- |
ton of the court Of the highest and |
final resort, can't otherwise than be |
staggered. when the differences are
so ambiguous as in the recent case
just decided. That there should be
difference of opinion among mem
bers of the United States Supreme
court on points OF law. involving the
rights and interests of citizens, and
even of corporations, Is both natural
and consistent with the operation OF
law, so that a decision rendered IN
cases of this kind with an af1irma
ton of but one vote. the result is
readily accepted, as settled. without
the least shock 10 the community
interested, and as a rule, without
any criticism of the wisdom of the
court itself. Not SO, however, with
the decision On the validity of the in
come tax. Here is question tnat
| involves the very essence and vltals
of the national government. Not
whether it was wise, Or good poll
tics, or even a necessity Tor such a
law, but above ali and beyond all,
whether the constitution vested such
power in the legislative and execu-
tive branches of the government to
enact such law. Whether the law
within itself was defective, ard
thereby open to amendments, in no
way ienters into this decision, for
| there is but one that confronts the
country to day, and that is. has the
national government any power to
protect and defend itself? And is
the constitution but a mere meaning
less written document, open 20 the
sport and fancy Of so called judges
and lawyers. Where does it begin,
and where does it end3 Herein, af-
ter all, is the Issue this decision has
raised; and once the people fully un-
derstand it, it will arouse them to a
deeper and clearer apprehension of
the danger underlying it than that
| of any other ever rendered by the
.Supreme court. The bred Scott de-
cision was Infamous enough, and
while it only operated against the
slave, the recent one is but step
ping-stone to the end of the Repub
lie. 1t is the old heresy of aate-bel-
lum days revived, only with ten-fold
more significance, for this time i,
means far more formidable comb,
nation of wealth against the poo,
than was ever threatened by the in.
lstitution of human slavery. While
slavery, during its entire domination
IN this country, scarcely produced
over two or three millionaires, if thai
many, since its adjustment anc
reign of special privileges, unde,
our socalled new era eff equal right.
under the law, we have produced
more millionaires in thirty year.
than 1t took Europe to do in the las
thousand years. With aggregated
wealth concentrated in few bands
what was there in the way to com
plicate fair meaning of the law
however much its original purpos
may have been to prevent it's az
|, grandizment? In the contemplation
Of such results, we are too apt t,
compound the abnormal with tn
real and the legitimate with tn
false, and thus under the guise Of 1
fair and equitable Interpretation a
we'll as administration of the law
we fall into its worst possible prosti
tuition. Is there any wonder tina
we are creating social conditions il
this. country as wide apart as thos
that existed under some of the wors
governments on the face of tn
earth7 These facts are so self-evi
dent that no man Of discernmen
can ignore; nor are they exaggerated
or in any sense pessimistic.
The old cry of antagonizing tn
rich and the poor cannot overlool
or excuse such bold perversions o
the law as the recent decision of tn
Supreme court clearly implies.
Justice Harlan, with the heroismian
boldness of both a sound jurist an
a patriot states the case in the nut
she'll when he declares that ''such
result is one to be deeply deplored
r 1t cannot be regarded otherwis
than disaster to the country. Tn
practical, if not the direct, effect Q
the decision is to give to certain
/ kinds of property a position of ia
n voritism and advantage that is in
! consistent with the .fundaments
l. principles of our social organization
= ard to invest them with power an
!, iniuen q that may be perilous t
!, that portion of the American pee
l. pie upon whom rests the larger pal
y Of the burdens of the government
Is and who ought not to be subjscte
to the dominion of aggregate
wealth any more than the propert
of the country should be at til
mercy of the lawless."
Still far mere reaching, the decis
len not only lowers the dignity c
the court itself by the loss of conf
dence in both its integrity and abb
ity to deal with any constitutions
question, but it may lead to its 81
tire reorganization. While the pee
pie may not be able to follow tn
decision in all its complications,
will not be long before their mind
will be clearly made up to the fat
that there is something wrong some
wAere-either in construction of tn
court, or in some lementable defec
in the constitution of the govern
ment, which fall SO far short {
enough clearly defined powers as
enable it to both defend itself an
to enforce its own authority. tt
people have had enough of this sort {
nonsense. They had one war on a
count Of it, and will hardly be teri
fed with it again. With all this, tt