The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-05-23

| concealment, generally employ the words
which most directly and APPLY express
the ideas they intend to voice, the men
who framed the constitution, and the
people who adopted it, must be under
stood to employ words in their obvious
| sense
| Eve know of no reason for holding other
wise than that the words "direct taxes
on one hand and duties, impoSts anC
excuses" on the other were used in the
constitution in their NATURAL and 'obvi-
| Gus senses nor do we perceive any
| grounds for enlarging them beyond OF
narrowing them within their natural anC
obvious import at the time the consh
| tuition was framed and ratified.
'And, passing from the text, we re-
gard the conclusion reached as inequl-
table when the circumstances which sur
round the convention and controlled lts
action and the views of those who framed
and those who adopted the constitution
are CONSIDERED.
"We do not care to travel ground al
ready traversed, but some Observations
may be added.
I'm the light of the struggle in the con-
yention as to whether the new nation
should be empowered to levy taxes direct
ly on the individual until after the state
had failed to respond to requlslhOns II
would seem beyond reasonable question
that the direct taxation was purpoSely
restrained ito iapportionment according
to representation in order that the FORMER
system as to ratio might be restralneq
while the mode of collection was changed
"This was forcibly illustrated by a let
ter of Mr.. Madison on Jan. ~, 1859, re
GENTLY published, written after the ratl
fication of THE constitution, but before the
organization of the government.
''The submission of the proposed amend
ment to congress, which while opposing
the amendments as calculated to impair
the power only to be exercised in 'eX-
traordinary emergencies assigns ade-
uuate ground for its rejection as sub
stantially unnecessary, since he says:
"'Every State which proposes to col
leot it's own quota may always prevent a
Federal election by keeping a little before,
hand in its finances and making its pay
ment only into the Federal treasury"
The chief justice next discussed the rea-
sons for the constitution and provisions
egarding direct taxation. The States had
plenary taxation, he said, but gave up the
great sources of revenue derived from
commerce and retained the power of levy
ing taxes and duties covering anything
other than excuses, but in respect to
them the range of taxation was Ear
rowed by the power granted 10 the Fed
eral government over interstate COM
merce. While they granted the power Of
apportionng direcr taxes they secured to
the States the opportunity > pay the ap-
porti0nrd taxes lnJ 10 rn1)upa frnn inelr
own citizens in the most feasible way.
The constitution ordained atfirinHtlyrly
that the representation and direct taxes
should be apportioned among the several
States according to the numbers, and
negatively that no direct tax should be
laid otherwise. The founders of the gov
eminent anticipated that the expenses
of the Federal government would be
chiefly met with direct taxation. They
knew the powers to tax involved the
power Ito destroy. 1t is said tax on
the wholesale income of a property is
not direct tax but duty. We do not
think so. Direct taxation was not re-
stricted in one breath and the restriction
thrown to the winds in another. The Hill
ton case was again reviewed and the
opinion says that Madison and Hamilton
(whOse positions had been questioned re-
garded the carriage tax bill as unconsti-
tutional. The Federalist was then quoted
from to show that Hamilton considered all
Internal taxes, except duties and excuses
on articles of consumption, to be direct
taxes.
Hamilton, the opinion says, supported
the carriage law which Madison OPP
posed because he regarded it as excise
tax.
The opinion then dismissed the Hilton
case with this comment:
"What was decided in the Hilton case
was that tax on carriages was an eX-
else and therefore an indirect tax"
The opinion next touches on the ar
gument that an income tax is not direct
tax within the meaning of the cOnsti-
tuition. 1t says:
"The constitution prohibits any direct
tax unless in proportion to numbers as as
certained by the census and in the light
of the circumstances to which we have re-
ferred, it is thought of that prohibition to
hold that a great unapportiOned tax i'm
posed upon all property is not direct in
the meaning of the constitution because
confined to the income therefrom. What
ever the speculative views of political
enconOmiStS or revenue refOrmers may be,
lit can not be properly held that the con-
stitution. taken in its plain and obvious
sense and with due regard to the circum-
stances unapportiOned tax on the pro
ducts of the farm and the rents of real
estate, although imposed merely because
of ownership and with no possible means
of escape from payment, and as belonging
ITO a totally different class from that which
includes the property from whence the IN
come proceeds. There can be but one
answer-unless the constitutional restric-
tion is to be treated as utterly futile and
the object of its trainers defeated, we ind
it impossible to hold that a fundamental
requsition, deemed so important as TO be
enforced by two provisions, one attirma-
tive and one negative, can be defined away
by forced distinctions between that which
gave value to property and to the prop
erty itself Nor can we precelVe any
ground why the same reasoning does not
apply to capital in personality Tor the pur-
pose of income or ordinarily including IN
come and to the income therefrom. All
the real estate of the country and all its
invested personal property are open TO the
direct operation of the taxing power II
an appOrtionment be made according TO
the constitution.
1.-THE constitution does not say that no
direct tax shall be laid by appOrtionment
on any other property than Land; on the
contrary. it forbids all unppaortioned d.
, rect taxes, and we know of no Warrant
| for excepting personal property from enc
! exercise of this power or any reason why
AN apportioned direct tax can not be lald
and assessed, as Mr.. Gaflatin said IN his
report when secretary OF the treasury
in 1872: Upon the same subjects as
those on which the direct taxes levleG
under the authority of State are lald an9