The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-05-21

came under consideration anu lne JuN,S.-
committee OF the Privy. Council. speaklsng
by Jessel, NJ. r., held that the words di-
rect taxation had either a technical mean
called. a popular meaning. One or other
meaning the words must nave anu
in trying to find out their mean an
usual sources OF informatiois. whether re
garded as technical words. words OF arr, OF
words used in popular language, ana, con-
sidering their meaning. either as WORDS
used in the sense of political economy, or
as words used in Jurisprudence OF tne eout.s
OF law il was concluded that stamps were
not included in the category of direct taxa
ton. and that the imposition was not "af-
ranted.
Privy Council. discussing the same suoJect
in dealing with the argument. mucn prssseu
must m sp be ear general ner sad 5 that they had mo
hesitation in rejecting Ii for legai purposes.
1t would deny the character OF nrrs. 11TrS'
which is always spoken of as such, ana Is
generally looked upon as a direct TAX Oh
counter TO the common understanding of
men on this subject which is one main
clew TO the meaning of the Legislature
THE COURTS ARGUMENT
After this review Of the cases and con-
sideration of arguments OF counsel the
court. as it approached its conclusion. made
the following general argument:
IF il were the fact that there had been
no income tax law, such as this at the time
the Constitution was framed and adopteu'
il would not be of controlling Importance
A direct tax cannot be taken out OF the
constitutional rule because the particular
tax did NOT exist at the time the rule was
prescribed. AS Chief Justice Marshall SAID
in the Dartmouth College case: II is not
enough to say that this particular case
was not in the mind of the convention
when the article was framed, nor OF the
American people when il was adopted II
is necessary 10 go further and TO say that,
had this particular case been suggested.
the language would have been SO varied as
a special exception. The case being with
in the words OF the rule must be within ITS
operation likewise. unless there be some
thing in the literal constructions OBJ
viously absurd. or mischievous, or repug-
nant to the general spirit of the instrument
as to Justify those who eXpound the Con-
stitution in making ii an exception; Be
ing direct. and therefore TO be laid by ap-
portionment is there any real difiiculty IN
doing so? Cannot Congress, If the neces-
sty exists of raising thirty, forty or any
other number of million dollars FOR the
support OF the government i'm addition TO
the revenue from duties, imposts and ex-
cises, apportion the quota OF eacn State
upcn the basis Of census. and thus ad-
wise il of the payment which must be made,
and proceed 10 assess that amount OH all
the real and personal property or the in
come of all persons in the State. and col
lect the same If the State does not in the
meantime assume and pay its quota and
collect the amount according 10 its own
system and in its own way. lnconveniences
come tax. but that it is apportionable is
hardly denied. although it is asserted that
1T would operate so unequally as 10 be un-
desirable.
In the disposition of the inquiry whether
general unapportioned tax on the income
ofsreal and personal property can be sus-
tanned under the Constitution IL is ap-
parent that the suggestion that the result
of compliance with the fundamental law
would lead TO the abandonment of that
method of taxation altogether. because OF
inequalities alleged TO necessarily accom-
pany its pursuit. could not be allowed TO
influence the conclusion; but the suggestion
not unnaturally invites attention to the
contention OF appellants counsel that the
want of uniformity and equality in this
act is such as to invalidate it, And fig
ures drawn from the census are given.
showing that enormous assets of mutual
tions, OF mutual savings banks. large pro-
ductive property of ecclesiastical organiza-
tions, are exempted, and that the exemp-
tions reach SO many hundred millions that
been reduced one-half if they had not been
made We are not dealing with the act
from that point of view. but assuming
the data to be substantially reliable, if the
sum desired to be raised had been appor-
toned IL may he doubted whether any
State which paid it's quota and collected
the amount by its own metho5s would or
could. under its Constitution, have allowed
large part OF the property alluded 70 to
escape taxation. If so, better measure of
equality would have been attained than
would be otherwise possible since accord
ing to the argument for the government
the rule of equality is not prescribed by
the Constitution as TO federal taxation
and the observance of such rule as in
herent in all just taxation is purely a mat
ter OF legislative discretion
A TAX ON THE RICH.
Elaborate argument is made as TO the
efficacy and merits of an income tar in
general, as, on the one hand. equal and
just, and on the other. elastic and certain;
not that it is not open TO abuse by such
deduc ions and exemptions as might make
tax tion under it $50 wanting in uniformity
and equality as in substance TO amount to
deprivation of property without the process
Of law; not that it is not open to fraud and
evasion and inquisitorial in its methods
but because IL is pre-erinently tax upon
the rlch, ana enables the burden of taxes
on consumption and OF duties on imports
TO be sensibly diminished, and it is said
that the United states as the Representa-
tive or an indiviSible nationality, as a po-
htical sovereign equal i'm authority to any
other on the face of the globe, adequa tie
to all emergencies. foreign or domestic
and having at its command for offense and
defense and for all governmental purposes
all the resources of the Nation, would be
but manned and crippled creation after
ALL, unless 1t possesses the power to lay
tax on the income of real and personal
property throughout the United States
without appOrtionment.
"The power to tax real and personal
property and the income from both throug N
dpDOruOnment is cOncefed so tnat such a
tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the
| Constitution has not been and in our judg-
meat cannot be successfully denied; and
yet we thus invited TO hesitate in the
enforcement of the mandate of the Consti-
| tuition which prohibits Congress from lay
ing direct tax on the revenue from prop
erty of the citizens without regard to lines
and in such manner that the State cannot
| intervene by payment in regulation of their
own resources, leSt> government of dele
| gated powers should be found to be not
| less powerful, but less absolute than the
| Imagination of the advocate had supposed.
I'VE not here concerned with the
| question whether an income tax be or be
not desirable or whether such "A tax would
enable the government to diminish taxes on
consumption and duties on imports and 10
| enter upon what may be believed to be a
reform of it's fiscal and commercial system.
| Questions of that character belong TO the
| controversies of political parties and can
| not be settled by judicial decision. In
| these cases our province is TO determine
| whether this income tax on the revenue
| from property does or does not belong 10
| the class of direct taxes. If il does il is
| being unapportioned, in violation of the
| Constitution, and we must so declare
| differences have often occurred in the
1 court-diferences exist now-but there has
| never been time in its history when there
| has been a difference of opinion as TO its
| duty TO announce its deliberate conclu-
| sons unaffected by considerations not per-
| tanning to the case in hand. If il be true
| that the Constitution should have been
| so framed that tax of this kind could be
| laid, the instrument defines the way 10 its
| amendment. In no part of IL was create;
| sagacity displayed. Except that no State
| without its consent, can be deprived of its