The sun., 1895-05-10
MIR. Choate on the Income Tax,

MIR. Choate on the Income Tax.
The speech with which Mr.. JOSEPH H.
CHoATE concluded on Wednesday his argr,-
ment before the Supreme Court of the
United States against the constitutionality
Of the income tax. is certain to be rend and
| pondered by every thinking man in this
| country. 1t will be read as we believe,
with assent and with admiration. 1t is
| destined to take an abiding place in Ameri-
can forensic literature.
In the reargument of the case, which
raised the question of the constitutonality
| OF the income tax, Mr. CHoATE undertook
the fulflment OF two aims: first, to reiter-
ate, emphasize, and, if possible, corroborate
the grounds upon which he and his associ-
ates had previously attacked the law, and
! which had led the court to declare some Of
its principal provisions unconstitutional {;
secondly, to show that the law having been
seriously mutilated, ought to he entirely
abolishcd for the reason that it's trainers
never meant to a>s it in it's present mutt
lated condition. In maintaining his funda-
mental assertion that the income tax is a
direct tax, and must; therefore. in accord
ance with the Constitution, be distributed
among the States in proportion to their pop
ulation, Mr.. CHoATE had occasion to con-
slider some suggestions Of the Attorney-G Gen.
cral, whose business it was to defend the tax.
Mr.. OLNEY had said that n direct tax could
not be assessed by apportionment without
resulting in inequality. The conclusive reply
was that such inequality had been foreseen
in the Philadelphia Convention of 1887
and in the succeeding State Conventions,
and had been solemnly agreed upon as a
part Of the compact on which the Constitu-
tion rests The Attorney General had also
contended that an invalidation of the in
como tax would grievousy impair the re-
sources Of the Federal Government in times
Of emergency. Mr.. CHoATE answered that
the only previous income tax known in the
country's history was levied during the
civil war, and he proceeded to point out
that up to the close Of 1860 the Federal
Government had expended for war purposes
more than 81 200, 600, 900, yet only Sl2G,-
OS2,S 2,S45 came from the income tax. The
fact showed how insignificant part
the tax played in supplying the country's
requirements at the time OF its greatest
necessities An apprehension had also been
should the court reverse the decision in the
SPRINGER case, whereby the legality of the
former income tax had been upheld, the
Government might have to refund the taxes
collected under that law. What kind of
political morality, asked Mr.. CnoATE, was
involved in the suggestion that because the
Government had in the past illegally COL
lected taxes, it must be permitted to 20 on
in the future illegally collecting other
taxes? He added that the court need have
no fear upon the score of rendering
the Treasury liable for tho refunding
of the proceeds OF the old tax. The
former income tax was paid willingly, and
II any of those who paid it, or their de-
scendants, should now demand its return,
they would he the targets of general con-
tempt; nor is there anything in the history
or attitude Of the Government to warrant
the belief that Rny of them would ever get
dollar OF it back. Holding up finally, to
opp"obrium that feature of the present in
come tax which relieves incomes Of 81, 900
or less from the operation Of the law, Mr.
CHoATE made it clear that this object
OF the high exemption was to make the
tax applicable only to small proportion
OF the people, chiefly residing in n few Of
the old scabonrd States, the very States that
gave up most in the compromises which re-
suited in the adoption of the Constitution.
Turning to the new point, which the re-
hearing OF the case made it possible to raise,
Mr.. CHoATE argued that the inroads made
upon the law by the decision already rem
dcrcd, offered good ground for the invali-
dation of the whole act As Indicative Of
the attitude which tho court should take
toward the already mangled income tax, he
quoted an opinion OF Chief Justice SHAW to
the following effect: Although parts of .n
net nre unconstitutional, other parts may
not be obnoxious to the same objection, and,
therefore, may have the force of law; DrO-
ri15d, however, that the parts 80 held re-
spectivcly constitutional and unconstitu-
tional, must be wholly independent of each
other. IL, on the contrary, they are SO
mutually connected with and dependent
upon each other as to warrant q belief that
the Legislature intended them as u whole,
and that, had IL foreseen that all could not
be carried into effect, the Legislature won!d
never have passed the residue independently,
all the provisions, thus dependent, con-
ditional. and connected, must fall to the
ground together. Mr. CHoATE cited n like
declaration OF doctrine by the Supreme Court
OF the United States. to wit. that unless the
court ca9 SEQ that it was the intention of