The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-05-25

the property itself that Il is not a di-
rect but an Indirect tax in the meaning
Of the constitution. The words of the
constitution are to be taken in their
obvious sense and have a reasonable
construction. We know no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words
direct taxes on one hand and duties,
imports and excuses were used in the
constitution in their natural and obvi
Gus senses; nor in arriving at what
these terms embrace do we perceive any
ground for charging them beyond or
narrowing them within their natural
and obvious import at the time the con-
stitution was framed and ratified; and
passing from the text we regard the con-
clusion reached as inevitable when the
circumstances whic., surrounded the
convention and controlled its action and
the views of those who framed and
those who adopted the constitution are
considered"
The chief justice discusses the reasons
for constitutional provisions regarding
direct taxation. The states had plenary
powers of taxation, he said, but gave
up the great sources OF revenue derived
from commerce, and retained the power
of levying taxes and duties covering
anything other than excuses, but in re-
spect to them, the range of taxation
was narrowed by power granted the
federal government over interstate COM
merce. While they granted the power of
apportioning direct taxation, they Sc
cured to the states the opportunity to
pay the amount apportioned and to re-
coupe from their own citizens in the
most feasible way. The opinion con-
tinues: lit is said a tax on the whole
income of property is not a direct tax,
but a duty We do not think so. Di-
rect taxation was not restricted in a
breath and restriction thrown to the
winds in another"
The opinion dismissed the Hylton case
with this comment: what was de-
cided in the Hylton case was that a
tax on carriages was excise and there
fore an indirect tax"
The opinion next took up the argu-
ment that a tax on property is not a
direct tax within the meaning of the
| conclusion and said: 1--WE find 1t i'm
possible to hold that fundamental re-
QUESTION deemed so important as to be
enforced by two provisions, one affirma-
tive and one negative, can be defined
away by forced distinctions between
that which gives value to property,
and the property itself. The stress of
argument is thrown, however, on the
assertion that the income tax is not a
property tax at all, that it's assessments
upon the taxpayer upon account of
his money spending power as shown by
his revenue for the year preceding the
assessment that rents are received
crops harvested, or interest collected
have lost all connections with their orr
gin, and although once not taxable
have been transmitted in their new
form into taxable subject matter. In
other words that income is taxable, ir-
respective of the source whence it is
derived"
The chief justice said since the court
had held unanimously that receipt:
from municipal bonds should not be-
taxed because the bonds were the in
struments of states, the same rule ap
piled to revenue from other sources no
subject to tax and lack of power t
= levy any but an apportioned tax OF
real and personal property equally eX
; lists as to the revenue therefrom. 9TH,
} court does not understand" it says
that the income tax has ever been re
: garded in England as other than di
z rect tax"