Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-01-25
FRIDAY,... JANUARY 25. 1895
The Income-Tax.

We gave yesterday a report OF the
opinion OF Mr.. Justice Hsgner. OF the
Supreme Court Of the District of Column
bia. in the case of John @. Moore. OF New
York. who had applied for an injunction
70 restrain the Commissioner Of Internal
Revenue from collecting the Federal In
come-tax levied under the new law.
Justice Hagner seemed TO have no
doubts whatever on the subject. He held
that there was practically no duplication
Of taxes as charged by Moore, but even
II there was the case came under the set
tied law that vexatious as double taxation
was Il was not possible TO avoid 1t In
every case.
Justice Hagner also decided against the
contention that the tax was unjust and
not uniform. because 1t was levied only
upon Incomes in excess Of $1,000. This
feature OF the new law fell. he said.
With, the discretion given TO Congress
ly tho Constitution and was beyond the
control OF the courts. We do not see how
the Court could have decided otherwise.
II a law is unconstitutional because u
than s.co0. a law like the Virginia law
Cor instance. which taxes no income I'M
der 500. must also be unconstitutional.
MIR. Justice Hagner also held that tax
uron aliens was constitutional. and, be-
sides. was beneficial rather than injurious
70 the complainant Moore.
The Court also decided against the con-
tention that the law was unconstitutional
because assessments were TO be maze
uoon incomes which had been earned
and received prior to the day when the
law took effect.
In favor OF Moore the Court held that
he had right TO recover taxes illegally
collected from him.
But II all the other contentious OF the
United States had been overruled' there
was one which would have suiiced 10
throw Mr.. Moore out Of court-nameiy'
the contention that the courts were WIN
out authority to grant injunctions IN such
cases. because of the provision In the Re
vised Statutes Of the United States that
- s,,, for the purpose of restraining
the assessment or collection or any tax
shall be maintained in any court.
The Court made no reference to the
cnrtnrer case. decided years ago In the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
II Is estimated that there will be S'OO"
rtrsons assessed with the income-tax
IN the United States, of whom Virginia
Will have say 1000.
We have for long time been Oh 'he
o,,plon. which we have announced IN
,hexe columns, that the income-tax mas
eor,. to stay. The people have reacheo
,he conclusion that this tax Is the faires'
,h,t can be levied IL II Is successfully
collected. They hold that tax ieVied
r,on 90 much Of every mans Income
nx ne may have left after paying the Cost
OF keeping up his house Is the least OPP
nresslye OF all taxes To say thao man
having an income of 1900. every dollar Oh
which goes 10 the support OF his iainiy'
ought 10 be made 10 pay an income-,a~
hscsrse a man having an income Iour
times as large Is made TO pay such
tax Is 70 be Illogical, TO say the least
The ability to pay should always be taken
into the account.
And vet we must confess mat we oo
not like an income-tax: not however
that we look upon 1t as an unjust TAX
but because It is annoying and VIII teno'
we fear, to tho Generalization OF the
neon,e An unaccountabie fact which we
may mention In this connection Is .ha'
under the last Federal income-tax law
the amount OF money collected by the
government was twice as much some
years as Il was In other years.