The evening world., 1895-05-20
The Power TO Tax.

The power to tax, real and personal
property. and the income from both,
through apportionment is "oHrctla.
that smrs z ;sa M IS i;rect taX N the
been. and in our Judgment cannot be.
successfully denied; and yet we are
thus invited to hesitate in the enforce
ment OF the mandate of the Consiitu-
ton, which prohibits Congress from lay
ing direct tax on the revenue from
property Of the citizen without regard
to state lines. and in such manner
payment in regulation Of their own re-
sources. lest government of delegated
powers should be found 10 be. not less
powerful; but less absolute, than the
Imagination of the advocate had sup
| posed.
| We are no, here concerned with the
question whether an income tax be or
tax would enable the Government to
| diminish taxes on consumption and
duties on imports, and to enter upon
what NAV be believed to be a reform
Questions OF that character belong TO
| the controversies of political parties
and cannot be settled by judicial de-
In these cases our province is to de-
termne whether this income tax on
the revenue from property does or does
II It does, II Is being unapportionei. in
violation OF the Constitution. and We
must so declare.
Differences have occurred in this
has never been time In its history
when there has been difference OF
opinion as to its duty to announce It's
| deliberate conclusions, unaffected by
considerations not pertaining to the
case in hand.
If II be true that the Constitution
OF this kind could be laid, the instru-
ment defines "A way for its amendment.
In no part OF 1t was greater sagacity
displayed Except that no State, with
equal suffrage in the Senate. the Con-
sutution may be amended upon the con
currence OF two-thirds OF both houses.
and the ratification of the legislatures
or conventions of the several States,
or through Federal Convention, when
applied for by the legislatures of two
thirds OF the states, and upon lik. rati-
ncation. The ultimate sovereignty may
be thus called into play by slow ana
deliberate process which gives time FOR
mere hypothesis and op.nion to ~.
haust themselves, and the sober second
thoughts OF every part OF the country
to he asserted.
We have considered the act only In
respect of the tax on income derived
from real estate and from Invested per.
sonal property. and have not com.
mented on 50 much of 1t as bears on
gain or profits from business, privileges
or employmcnts. in View of the in,
stances In which taxation on business
privileges or employments has assumed
the guise of an excise tax and been
sustained as such.
Bc!ng of opinion that so much Of tn,
sections If this law as Laws A tax OF
income from real ana personal property
Is invalid, We are brought to the uurs.
tion OF the effect of the conclusion upOr
these sections as whole.
II Is elementary that the same statut,
may he in par constitutional and In parl
unconstitutional and If the parts art
wholly independent of each other, thii
| witch Is constitutional may stand Will,
that which Is unconstitutional VIII %.
rejected. And in the case before II,
there Is no question as Ia the Vaiiilt,
OF this act, except sections - tn 81 in
elusive, which relate to the subject whlrl
has been under discussion, and as I,
them, We think the rule liiI down II,
chief Justice SHAW In Warren vs.
Charleston, Is applicable, that II IN
dlrerrn, parts are So mutually con
nec;ci with and dependent On earl
other, as conditions. considerations a.
| COmp"usations for each other As I,
warrant a belief that the I.rs;isIatur.
intended them as a whole, and tht' 4
all could not hc carried into effect IN,
. Legislature would not pass the residue
in iepentcnNy and some parts are nm
constitutional, all the provisions vhiri
, are thus Independent. coniitiona! or con
nectei, must fall with them"
Mr. Justice Matthews Quoted.