The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1895-06-06
Justice Harlan'S
Opinion,
IContinued from LIST page.l

1--WE are told. in argument, that
he burden OF this income tax, if
will fall, and was imposed
hat it might fall, almost entirely
upon the people of few States and
hat it has been imposed by the votes
Of Senators and Representatives of
States whose people will pay relst-
lively very small part of it This
suggestion, it is supposed, throws
light upon the construction to be
given to the Constitution and con-
stitutes q sufficient reason why this
court should strike down the pro-
vision that Congress has made for an
income tax. 1t Is suggestion that
ought never to have been made in q
court of justice. But it seems to
have received some consideration at
the hands of the court in the opin-
ion just delivered, for the court says
that the grant of the power to lay
and collect direct taxes was, in the
belief by the trainers of the Censti-
tuition, that it would not be exer-
cised unfairly and discriminatory as
to particular States or otherwise by
a mere majority vote, possibly of
those whose constituents were in
tentionally not subjected to any part
of the burden 1t is cause for pre-
found regret that the highest judi
cial tribunal of the land has thought
it appropriate to intimate that the
law now before us had its origin in
a desire upon the part of majority
in the two Houses of Congress to im-
pose undue burdens upon the people
of pal ticular States.
81 am unable to perceive that the
performance of our duty should de-
pend in any degree upon an inquiry
as to the residence of the persons
who are required by the statute to
pay this income tax. If, under the
bounty of the United States or the
benefcient legislation of Congress or
for any other reason, some parts of
the country have outstripped other
parts in population and wealth, that
surely is no reason why people of the
more favored States should not share
in the burdens of government alike
with the people of all the States Of
the Union. Is given body of PEG
pie in one corner of the United
States, although owning vast prof.
l critics from which amounted mil.
lions are regularly::derived, of more
consequence in the eye of the Con
,, stitution and the judicial tribunal
}. of the land than the like number Of
people in other parts of the oountr.
:, who do not enjoy the same pros
. perity?
A HAZARDOUS PRECEDENT.
care those in whose behalf argu
ments are made that rest upol
favoritism by the law-making powe
, to mere prosperity and to particula
sections of the country aware tina
they are provoking a contest whic
in some countries has swept away
) in a tempest Of frenzy and passion
, existing social organizations and pu
l in peril all that was dear to tn
friends of law and order? Are the
yet to learn that sach argument
tends to arouse conflict that ma
result in giving life, energy, an
power as we'll to those in our midi
who are eager to array section agains
section as to those, unhappily nc
few in number, who are without an
proper idea of our free institution
and who have neither respect for til
rights of property nor any concel
ton of what is liberty regulated b
law?''
Mr.. Justice Harlan devoted son
time then to the consideration OF tt
proposition that because a part {
the law was unconstitutional the r,
mainder of it was invalid, and col
cluded:
eff the sections of the statute r.
latlng to tax upon incomes derive
from other sources than rents an
invested personal property, are
fall, because and only because tho
relating to rents and to income fro
invested personal property are il
A valid, let us see to what result sue
R rule would logically lead. The
= is no distinct, separate statute pr
st viding for tax upon incomes. I'll
ed income tax is prescribed in certa
be sections of a general statute, the o
OF ject of which was to reduce taxatle
and provide revenue for the 90
ri eminent. The judgment just re
es dered defeats the purpose of Co
mn gress, by taking out Of the reven,
a p not less than thirty millions, a,
~ possibly fifty millions of dollar
~ expected to be raised from income
'n We know from the official journs
IT, Of both houses of Congress that ia
re alton would not have been reduc
I'D to the extent it was by the Wills
'93 act, but for the belief that if t
"a country had the benefit of reven
ed derived from a tax on incomes, tn
it could be safely done. We kno
from official sources, that each Hou
of Congress distinctly refused
strike out the provisions imposing
'o tax on incomes. In every possit
way the two Houses of Congress
dicated that IT. must no nor+