Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-05-21
woRTH, TExAs. TUESDAY MAY gl rrsp

property from the exercise OF the pow
err or any reason why an appoftioned
direct tax cannot be laid and assessed,
as Mr.. Gallatin said in his report when
secretary of the treasury In 1872
upon the same objects OF taxation on
which the direct tax levied under the
authority OF the state are laid and as
sessed." Nor are we impressed with
the argument that because In the four
instances In which the power OF direct
taxation has been exercised congress
did not see fit, for reasons OF expe-
diency. TO levy n tax upon personal
property that this amounts to such n
practical construction of the constitu-
ton that the power did not exist that we
must regard ourselves bound by 1t.
We should regret to be compelled
TO hold the powers OF the general gov
eminent thus restricted and certainly
cannot acccde to the idea that the con-
stitution has become weakened by n
particular course Of inactlon under It.
The stress OF the argument is thrown
however, on the assertion that an in
come tax is not property raS at
all. that 1t is not a real estate tax
or crop tax, or bond tax; that 1t
Is an assessment upon the tax payer
on account OF his money spending
power MS shown by his revenue for She
year preceding the assessment; that
TtnNs TtCtlNtut ntfNtsltut ftuhS
collected, have lost all connection With
their origin. and although once ut tax
able. have become transmitted In their
new form into taxable subject nat.
ter; In other words, that income Is
taxable irrespective of the source from
which 1t is derived.
The chief Justice said hat since the
court had held unanimously that the
receipts from municipal bonds could
not be taxed because the beads were
instruments OF the states, the same
rule applies TO revenue from other
sources not subject TO Che taN, and
the lack OF power to levy aey Lut an
apportioned tax on real ana personal
property equally exists as to the revpue
therefrom.
The court does not un icrstnnd, II
says, that the income tax has ever
been regarded In Englaaa ps Other than
u direct tax.
After q review OF this case and con-
sideration OF arguments cf counsel. the
court as 1t approached its conclusion
made the following general argument:
IL 1t We're the fact that the:e had
been no income tax law such
as this, at the time the
constitution WAS framed and adopted,
II would not be of controlling import
nlce. A direct tax cannot be taken out
OF the constitutional rule because the
particular tax did not exist at the sime
the rule was prescribed.
As Chief Justice Marshall said In the
Dartmouth College case! at IL not
enough TO say that this particular
case was not in the mind of the con-
Ventlon when the article was framed
nor of the American people when it
was adopted. II IS necessary to so
further and to say that had this par
tlcular case been suggested tho Ian
guage would have been SO wordei as
to exclude 1t, or 1t would have made a
special exception. The case being
within the words OF the rule must be
within its operation likewise. unless
there be something in the literal con-
struction so Obviously absurd or mis-
ehievous or repungnant to the general
spirit OF the instrument as to Justify
those who expouud the constitution in