Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-05
a l'nlforsu Tax.

Tho opponents OF the present income
tar have objected to II that II is not uni
form. But this objection was met ny
Mr.. Justice Hagner. OF the supreme
Court of the District Of Columbia "So
IN the case OF Moore VS.. Miller dlseusseu
no, only this point, but all the points
which had been raised In MS COURT
Ar we might say, elsewhere. we nave
,pst received the full opinion OF the
co,r, IN that case. II IL exhaustive OF the
subject and leaves no room Tor eNpce
,ng that the Supreme Court OF 'he
United States will look for loop-ho'es
through which TO attack the federai Ia"
,e,y,rg n tax upon incomes. After say
inc that IL has never been supposed mat
as..,,,,ora I'm state laws are beyond
tho mower of the State governments
even where their constitutions were IN
nliclt IN requiring uniformity OF taN"'o"
as by declaring that each person II"
c,o,a ought 10 contribute his portion OF
public taxes for the support OF govern
,,o,, according 10 his actual worth In
real or personal property MI JUSTICE
Haener quantity adds that II such gene
raj principles were always to receive
literal application tax upon prop'i'
must include the OUTFIT OF the Ooo'p'"'"'
and the monthly wages OF a servant
must he taxed as income.
Justice Hngncr logically adds tha' 'ne
effort TO include everybody anu every
thing would result in such cases '"S
that Of the bootblacD In dimlhu'ioh
rather thai increase Of revenue
The Justice quotes the supreme court
Of the United States as follows
"rhe provisions Of the fourteenth
o-rcnd-,ent that no State shal ueny
10 any person within its jurisdiction '.e
equal protection OF the law was h", III
tended TO prevent state from auJuSuns
Ira system OF taxation In all proper anu
reasonable ways.
And Of course was not in'ehueu "
prevent the United States from ADJUST
ing its system Of taxation In all proper
and reasonable ways
As to the requirement Of uniformity
in levying a Federal tax Justice hagher
quotes the Supreme Court OF the United
States as follows:
"The uniformity here prescribed has re-
ference TO the various localities In when
the tax Is intended 10 operate. II snah
he uniform throughout the tnited
States Is the tax on tobacco Nold pe>
cause in many. OF the States no tobacco
Is raised or manufactured? Il the tau
on distilled liquors void because "A few
state. nay three fourths OF the revenue
arising therefrom?
""rhe tax IS uniform when It operates
with the same force and effect IN every
place where the subject is to be found
Touching exemptions Justice HaGner
calls attention to the fact that similar
exemptions as 10 taxes on income appear
in the original income-tax law passed
bv Congress August ,. 1851. and in each
enactment and re-cnactment until its re-
peal. Justice Hagner says emphatcally:
But although II may be the exemption
in the present law is decidedly larger
than any OF those in the systems ! have
referred 10. the question Of its reason
ableness was for the decision Of the Leg
islature, which has adjusted the amount
according 10 its own view Of its pro-
priety, as 1t had a right to do
"As It had right to do" quoth Jus
tce Hagner significantly. Those few
words tell the whole story. Persons liable
TO be taxed upon their incomes may as
well make up their minds that the law
| Is constitutional.
1t Is worthy OF remark that NJ. Justice
Hagner quotes the Virginia case of An
toni vs.. Greenhow as applicable in one
respect in the case before him.
Mr.. Justice Hagner's opinion would I'll
several OF our columns. We quote him
only on a few points which have been
| raised here in Virginia.