Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-25
WHY THE INCOME TAN LAW is
NOT GOOD.
INSOFAR AS IT LEvIEs A TAX ON
RENTS FROM REAL
ESTATE.
GOES BACK TO THE DEcLARA-
TON OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
POSITION TO cLEvELAND's
MONEY VIEWS WILL NOT BE
TOLERATED BY HIM.


WAShiNdiON, April ~.
The text of Chief Justice Fuller on
the income tax matter was made pub
lie today. The opinion is preceded by
an elaborate review OF the history OF
the case. The opinion proper is intro
duced with the statement TINT the con-
stitution provides that the representive
and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among the several states according to
numbers and no direct tax shall be
laid except according 10 the enumera-
ton provided and also that an duties.
imports and exports shall be uniform
throughout the United States. He then
says the opinion was formed by The
struggle for independence when the CRY
had been mo taxation without repre-
sentation"
The mother country had taught the
! colonies that taxation constituted the
main security against oppression. The
states We're careful to see that taxa
ton and representation should go to-
| gether so that the SOVEREIGNTY should
not be impaired, and that when con-
| gfess voted tax upon property IL
! should do so with the CONSTITUENCIES and
under the responsibility that In go doing
the tax so voted would proportionatcW
IAN upon the shoulders OF those who
imposed 1t. More than this by the
constitution the states not only got
power to tax persons and property
directly but they surrendered their
own power to levy taxes on itnparts
| and to regulate commerce So when
the Weather states as between
themselves and their less favored assoc
ciates and all as between themselves
! and those who were TO come gave nm
Tor the common nnnI
or revenue derived through commerce.
they did so In reliance on the protection
Afforded by restriction on the grant OF
power.
Thus In the matter of taxation the
constitution recognizes the two great
classes OF direct and indirect taxes
ana the laws lay down two rules nv
which this imposition must he
governed, namely; The rule OF appor-
uonment as to direct taxes and the ruIe
OF uniformity as to duties Imports.
Ihere have been from time to time
ihtimhtions," said the chief justice that
there might be some tax which uns
not direct not Included under the words
duties and imports, but such n tas
Tor more than 100 years of national ex-
lstenee has remained undiscovered
Notwithstanding the stress particular
circumstances have invented yor
sources of revenue"
%, the Bredlcr part or the opln-
ION IS devoted to the condition OF the
question whether a tax on rents ts n
dlrect tax within the meaning OF the
constitution. '"0
"Ordiarily," said the justice, sin tak-
ing up this branch OF the subject ali |
taxes paid primarily by persons who !
can shIt the burden upon some one |
else or who are under legal obligation !
10 pay them are considered Indirect |
taxes, but tax upon property holders
in respect to their estates whether nor
sonal, or II the income is included. can
not be avoided, are direct taxes. Never
theless, II may be admitted that, al
though this definition of direct taxes
~ found correct and to be applied In
the question before us, yet the consti-
tuition may bear different meaning
and that different meaning must be
recognized. But in arriving at the con-
clusion upon this subject we are at lib
erty to refer to the historical circum-
stances attending the framing and
adoption OF the constitution as well as
the entire frame and scheme of the
instrument and the consequences at
tendant upon the one construction or
the other.
Hence the inquiry. What at the
time the constitution was framed and
adopted was recognized ms direct
taxes?' Discussing tho qualifications
said they were men of sagacity fully
conversant with governmental prob
lens, deeply conscious OF the nature
OF the tax and profoundly convinced
that they were laying the foundation
OF a vast future empire.
Various authorities are quoted at
length to show the process by which
the compromise which was delegated
to the power to tax the various states
were arrived at.
Many quotations are also made de-
the right of the Federal
government to directly assess and coll
lect It's own taxes at least after requi-
stion upon the state had been made
and failed. and this was one of the
chief points of the conflict.
Discussing the Hilton case so fire.
luenuy referred TO in this case, In
which the supreme court decided that
/, tax on horses and carriages was not
direct tax. and referring to Justice
ruling that nothing but a
and tax was a direct tax. the chief
Justice goes on at some length.
The acts Of July IL. 1913, and Of
August 3. 1861, are reviewed after
which the following propositions are
aid down:
]. That the distinction between a \
iirect and indirect tax was well under
stood by the farmers OF the constitu-
ion and those who adopted IT,
2. That under the state system OF
aSatlon all taxes on real estate or per-
onal property or the rents or income
hereof were regarded as direct taxes.
Q. That the rules OF apportionment
we're adopted In view OF that distinc- ,
ion and those systems ,
4. That whether the tax on carriages !
vas direct or indirect was dlputsd, but
he tax was sustained as tax on the
Use and was an excise.
g. That the original expectation was
hat the power OF direct taxntion would !
,e exercised only In extraordinary in I
tanccs and down 20 August 10. 1894, i
his expectation has been realized The {
ct Of that date was passed in q time I
( profound peace and IL we assume {
hat no special exingency called for /
nusunl legislation and that this mode +
Z taxation become an unusual means q
I supply. the fact furnishes an adj {
itionai reison for circumspection and O
arc in disclosing OF the case. o
The opin! on here reviews numerous i
eeisions Under the act of 1891, includ-
lg the Springer casN which was Q