The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-13
NO Court Can Ignore the Action
of the National Body of
Lawmakers.
THE TEST CASES LOST TIME
Unless Former Decisions Are Dis
puted the Present Law Must
Be Upheld.

ings in the income-taX case in the Supreme
Court to-day opened with an argument by
Acknowledgement Olney, on behalf of the
Government, for the validity of the tax.
The courtroom inside the bar was crowded,
and there was no time when the limited
capacity of the room was sufficient to &C
commodate the audience.
Mr.. Olney began by saying that the chief
interest of the Government in the Gtiga-
ton was limited to constitutional questions,
which the several plaintiffs allege to be
involved. Whether they are really in
volved he would not attempt to determine.
An examination of the plaintiffs bills and
briefs and arguments seemed to him to
show that many of the alleged objections
to the validity of the income tax are
simply perfunctory in character.
They are taken pro forma by way of pre-
caution because of the possibility of point
developing in some unexpected connection
and Just as good pleader, but his knowl-
edge of this case and of the pertinent
remedies ever so thorough never fails to
wind up with the general prayer for other
and further relief No time need be spent
in discussing the averments that the in
come-tax law is an invasion of vested
44SLlS, VI ldACS plOPC4lg N4II4OuJ OuC plO-
cess of law. The propositions are pure
generalities and if there is anything in
them it is because they comprehend others
which are the only real subjects of proba-
bic discussion.
Again, suppose it to be true that the
income-tax law undertakes to ascertain the
income of citizens by methods which are
not only disagreeable but are infringe
ments of personal rights, the consequence
is not that the law is void but that the
hotly denounced inquisitorial methods
cannot be resorted to. The like considera-
tons apply to the objection that the law
Is to lie pronounced void because taxing
the agencies and instrumentalities of the
governments of the several States. 1t has
not Vet been definitely adjudicated and it
Is by no means admitted that the income
oi he State and Of municipal securities is
not taxable by the United States when
assessed as part of the total income of the
others.
Ii am right in these observations" he
continued. the constitutional contention
of re plaintiff SINNERS down to two
poi1st>. One is that the income tax is a
direct AK and must be imposed according
10 tie rule Of apportionment, and the
other IS based upon the alleged violation
Of the constitution with regard to uni
for;nity."
He declared that whether the income tax
Is what the constitution describes as a
direct" tax is a question as completely
concluded by repeated adjudications as
any question can be. 1t is not a direct
tax within the meaning of the constitution
unless five concurring judgments OF this
court have all been erroneous.
Speaking on another point raised by the
appellants, he said no land tax is aimed at
or attempted by the statute-there is no
lien on land for payment-and the whole
scope and tenor of the statutes show the
contemplated subject of taxation to be per-
sonal property and to be nothing else
Mr.. Olney devoted considerable time to
the meaning of the word uniform" as ap-
piled to the collection of imposts, excuses,
etc, declaring that the word had terri
torial application and no other.
THE power to tax" he said, sis for
practical use and is necessarily to be
adapted to the practical conditions of
human life. These are never the same for
any two persons, and as applied to any
community, however small, are infinitely
diversified. Regard being paid to them,
nothing is more evident, nothing has been
oftener declared by courts and jurists than
that absolute equality of taxation is i'm
possible, is, as characterized in an opinion
of this court, only "a baseless dream
"No country, for example, no State of
this Union, ever adopted a plan of taxa
ton that did not except some portions of
the community from a burden that was
imposed upon others. The power to do so
is unquestioned and is universally exer-
cised. Nevertheless the power to exempt
has bounds. 1t cannot be used without
regard to the end in view nor TO crafty a
mere whim or caprice. The rules Of
uniformity place no restriction upon any
division of the community into classes for
taxable purposes which the Legislature
may deem wise. Uniformity between
members of a class created for taxable
purposes is required. 1t is quite beside the
issue to argue in this or any other case
that Congress has mistaken what public
policy requires on that point. Congress is
the sole and final authority and its de-
cision, once made, controls every other de-
partment of the Government. The statute
makes no exception in favor of class that
is not based on some obvious line of public
policy, and the class being established
one uniform rule is applicable to its
members.
Take, for example, the principal ciassif-
cations of all, the grand division by which
the entire population of the country is
separated into people with incomes of $4,000
and under, which are non-taxable, and
people with incomes of over $4,000, who
are taxable. 1t is manifest that in this
distinction Congress was proceeding upon
definite views of public policy and was
aiming at accomplishing a great public
object 1t was seeking to adjust the load
of taxation to the shoulders of the conmu-
nifty in the manner that would make it
most easily borne and most lightly felt.
"Take another illustration-that of bnsi-
ness corporations. Their net incomes are
taxed at the standard rate of per cent,
but undiminished by the standard deduc-
ton of $4,000. The result may be that a
man in business as a member of corpora
ton is taxable at a little higher rate than
a man in the same business by himself or
as a copartner. Here, it is claimed, is a