Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-05-21

most feasible way. The constitution or
dalned aflirmatiyely that representa-
tion and direct taxes should be APP
portioned among the several states ac-
cording to their numbers, and mega
lively that no direct tax should be
laid otherwise. The founders of the
government contemplated that the eN-
penses of he federal government would
be chiefly met by indirect taxation.
They knew that the power to tax In
volved the power to destroy" The
opinion continues:
at is said that the tax on the whole
income of property is not direct tax.
but q duty. We do not think so. Di-
rect taxation was not restricted in one
breath and the restriction blown to the
winds in another"
The Hilton case Is again reviewed
and the opinion given that Madison
and Hamilton Cwhose views have been
questloned) regarded the carriage tax
bill as unconstitutional. The Federal
list was then quoted TO show that Ham
ilton considered all internal taxes. ex-
cept duties and eNcises on articles of
consumption to be direct taxes. Ham
ilton, the opinion says, supported the
carriage law which Madison opposed
because he regarded It as an excise.
Justice Chase. 1t IL said. thought the
carriage tax was a tax on expense be-
cause on n consumable commodity and
expressly declined to give an opinion
as to what were the direct taxes con-
templated by the constitution"
The opinion then dismlsses the Hill
ton case with this comment
what was decided in the Hilton
case was that tax on carriages was
an excise and therefore an indirect
tax"
The opinion next took up the argyll
ment that a tax on property ia not
direct tax within the meaning OF the
constitution and on this point II says;
"The constitution prohlbs any direct
tax unless In proportion to numbers,
as ascertained by the census and IN
the light of the circumstances TO which
II referred, II is but an evasion OF That
prohibition to hold that a generally
apportioned tax imposed upon all prop
erty IN not direct in the meaning OF the
constitution because confined to the IN
come therefrom, Whatever the specu-
latIve Views of political economists or
revenue reformers may be, can II be
properly held that the constitution Ia
ken In its plain and obvious sense. and
with due regard to the circumstances
attending the formation of the govern
ment authorizes a general unapportion-
cd tax on the products of the farm ana
the rents OF real estate, although I'M
posed merely because OF ownership and
with no possible means of escape from
payment. as belonging to totally dit-
ferent class from that which includes
The property from whence the IN
come proceeds? There can be but one
answer. Unless the constitutional re-
striction IL to be treated MS utterly IL
lusory and futile and the object OF It's
trainers defeated, we find II Impossible
10 hold that a fundamental requisilon,
deemed so important as 10 be enforced
nv two provisions. one affirmative anu
one negative, can be defined away by
forced distinctions between that when
give value to property and to properly
itseIf Nor can we perceive any ground
why the same reasoning does not Apply
10 eapital IN personality Al
The real estate OF the country ana us
Invested personal property are open 70
The direct operation OF the taxing pow
err If an apportlonment be MADE ae-
eordlng TO the constitution.
THE constitution does not say that nv
direct tax shall be laid by nppor,ioh,
ment on any other property than ANU
On the contrary. It forblds all unap-
nortioned direct ;axes; and we know Q,
nd warrant Cor excepting personal