Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-08

J
the undecided questions, contending that
there were the same reasons for eXempting
incomes that existed for exempting bonds
and real estate. This, he claimed was
necessarily and logically SO. The first ae-
cessity In this connection was to find Some-
thing that would be agreed upon as a sub
Ject of direct taxes, and that was found
in the body OF real estate, and upon this
the decisions of the court and the practice
in the nation had been uniform since the
days of the first direct tax in 179s.
COlloquy With Justice Harlan.
In discussing the nature of a direct tax
Mr.. Choate contended that there had never
been suggestion Of difference between a
tax on a body of real estate and the in
come from real estate in the matter of di-
rectness.
Further on Justice Harlan asked Mr.
edNoaI. Choate if he meant by general tax on
property of every kind.
Not at ALL Mr.. Choate replied; "be-
cause admit the right of exemption"
Justice Harlan-"Does a tax law that
reaches only part Of personal property
come under that heading?"
Mr.. Choate-'In New York there Is vast
body of personal property. and the govern
ment levies on the general body of citizens,
except inmates of tenement houses, nearly
one-half of the population yet 1 call that
a general assessment, not excepting the
exemption. 1t is a tax that cannot be
shifted, and tax that cannot be avoided.
When the city of New York sends to me
for so many hundred dollars for my per-
sonal property how can shift it on some
one else or avoid it? BY turning my bonds,
giving away my horses, refusing to accept
anything Of value from any source But
the question whether a tax on real estate
can be shifted l will leave to political
economists. with whom have no relations
and hope never to have relations"
Mr.. Choate looked at the Attorney Cen
eral when he spoke of political economists,
and there was laughter, a rare demonstra-
ton in the Supreme Court.
Congress Can Tax Business.
After reading from that part of the opin-
ions of the court, recently delivered after
the first hearing Of the case, which dealt
with taxes upon real estate as direct taxes,
Mr.. Choate asked what word, what sugges-
tlon, what thoughts had bean advanced
that those opinions did not apply equally
we'll to personal property. If the Consti-
tuition had said that Congress should not
levy any tax on bonds in the hands of the
owner and Congress had levied a tax on
any part of the bonds would not the court
condemn the law?
Justice Harlan asked if the counsel would
call a tax on the income of bonds direct
tax that would have to be apportioned and
upon receiving an affirmative reply asked
IL the same was true OF q TAX on banking.
Mr.. Choate answered.: That is a bust
ness and this court has over and over again
deciled that Congress can tax a business"
Then he dwelt upon the proposition that
where the Constitution prohibited a tax
at all and Congress levied 1t, 1t must be
restrained where it was permitted to tax
only by apportionment and infringed upon
that rule 1t must be restrained with equal
firmness. He applied the case of the COM
pact of thirteen states to individuals and
inquired if persons who had made a bust
ness agreement not to levy upon the prop
erty of those concerned and proceeded to
take the income from that property. would
have any case before the court.
In discussing the principle of stare de-
cisis, which he defined as the rule of stand
ing by a former decision whether right or
wrong he said that he was constrained to
believe that two of the justices had only
consented to the former decisions in defer
ence to that principle. Your honors are
sworn to obey the Constitution as the
primal law" L.
Every act of Congress stands in the
light of it, or must fall. Must not every
decision of this court that IS found to be
in conflict with the Constitution by the
light of the latest evidence and the most
complete information also fall? If not,
your honors are placing this court above
the concurrent branch of government, en-
forcing a rule upon Congress that you will
not apply to yourselves"
An Interesting Point.
He admitted that there might be cases
in which property had been acquired and
held under erroneous decisions that had
been accepted by common consent and
where it might be best to let the error
stand. but the case under consideration
was one where the rights of no man would
be adversely affected by correcting the
error.
Thereupon Justice Brown inquired: Sup
pose Congress had acted for one hundred
court, is not that sufficient foundation for
obedience to the rule of stare decsis?"
"It is not" Mr.. Choate answered, land I
am going to show that there Is no founda-
tion for that rule
Taxes Direct and Indirect.
He argued that no tax could be of both
kinds both direct and indirect, as ne In
terpreted the argument Of the government
to hold, but that both direct and indirect
tax could be levied on the same property.
Because Congress had for a century limited
a direct tax to real estate, 1t did not be-
come law that tax on personally was
Tot direct tax.
If Congress had a choice between the
two and for reasons of economy saw fit
to levy on real estate only 1t could not be
thought to have relinquished its right to
levy on personal property. Suppose the
argument were made that because he
capitation tax had become effete the right
to levy capitation tax was abandoned.
Because Congress laid direct tax on
real estate in 1898, when 1t was thought
the French were coming, was it estopped
thereby from levying on personal property
in 1872 when the British came?
Mr.. Choate concluded his argument at
o'clock, and the court adjourned until Mon
day next
MIR. CHOATE'S COMMENCEMENT.
In the COurt-The Second
Afternoon of the Hearing.
The arguments on the income tax ques-
ton before the Supreme Court proceeded
yesterday afternoon until after o'clock,
bo1-