Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-20
WEDNESDAY. J.. MARCH 90. 1895.
The National Incom.- INK.

Seldom has a case been decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States
which attracted more attention or in
voived more important principles than
the income-tax case. now pending before
that tribunal.
Article l.. section O. Of the Federal
Constitution provides as follows:
Representatives, and direct taxes shall
be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union
according TO their respective numbers"
Section s. Article l., of the Federal
Constitution provides as follows:
1.-The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes. duties. imports, and
excuses to pay the debts and provide for
the common defence and general welfare
Of the United States but all duties. i'm
posts, and excuses shall be uniform
throughout the United States"
The requirement is plain that all duties
imposts, and excuses, shall be uniform
throughout The United States. But what
is meant by the word uniform" in this
connection? AS we understand their con-
tention on this point. the new law taxing
incomes is held by the lawyers employed
against the government to be unconstl-
tut!onal because 1t is not uniform law
which. taxes an income OF ShVp ana
does not tax an income OF 5000 is de-
nounced as unconstitutional for that rea-
son.
The reader must not forget that the
point under consideration was involved IN
"a case decided by the Supreme court OF
the United States under the income-taX
which was levied by Congress some years
ago. The New York Journal of Commerce
says that although under that law the
s-prene Court decided the old income
tax TO be other than direct tax MI
Choate. one Of the lawyers engaged IN
the case now before the court. argued
that the tax was direct. He thus Invited
that tribunal 10 overrule itself.
We confess our inability TO perceive
that n law taxing incomes of $500 ana
exemptlng incomes Of 1900 is necessarily
unconstitutional. II the law provided that
John Smith should pay an incop1e-taX
and John Brown should not that law
would be unconstitutional, no doubt. But
II is a very different thing to provide
mat all incomes of 1900 shall be taxed
and all incomes under that amount shah
be exempt. Surely that is uniform TAX
Certainly Il would seem to be nothing
more than reasonable.
A New York paper boldly charges tha'
the present income-tax was ieVieu oy
Congress in order to collect from the
ror,heastern part of the country taxes
which would not be collected except IN
,rdainr amounts from other parts OF
the country. That is equivalent to saying
that the tax was levied upon rich men,
ard not upon poor men. The people Vi
the other sections of the country declare
that they wish they had to pay the IN
come-tax. That Is to say. they wouiu
GLADLY nay it II they had the income upon
which IL is levied. All incomes unoer
.oo are exempt Is not that provision
uniform? All incomes over WV" arg
taxed. Is not that provision also UNIFORM
we expect the income-tax 10 DC pio-
nounced constitutional. The supreme
Court OF the United States has. no oouo'.
q leaning towards the government In III
sucb cases The chances. TOO are on
the side OF the government, seeing that
81 only eight justices take part IN sne
aaoas,or the court may be divided
equally. and thus the decision OF the oou'.
,s,ow NAV be affirmed by division Oh :
e. However. We confess that we ao
-. rro,v anv good reason why Jusuee
Jackson should not be well euanhea ~
decide the case. seeing that ne Is sno
roughly posted as to the sons' asn Sasn
questions involved. and. besides can KEEP ,e,
with ~ With the case as it goes through the