The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-19
THE ARGUMENT on THE INCOME
TAX LAW.

one Of the counsel who argued the
income tax case in the Supreme Court OF
the United States in opposition to It's va
uaitv. told the court that though one
of it's Justices. the venerable Stephen D.
= FuA. came into the court during the
10y. s+.a- Aa4-fart'eipato in all the i'm
portant decisions growing out OF that
mighty conflict, he had never mad pre-
scented TO him a case fraught with such
momentous consequences as that then I'M
der argument. We can well believe this
TO be true It Is possible that II TINS
law is sustained, the American people may
have the good sense to stop the agfarlah
movement at the point II has now reach
cd But that is not the usual course OF
movements of this sort The present law
is the assertion OF right to impose
special tax upon rich man because ne
IS rich man, and without any SORT OF
regard to the taxes that other men pay
II IS true that the movement now begins
with the man whose income is $1,000, and
taxes all alike whose income is above That
sum-about 2 per cent. of the popula-
ton. But If the present unequal tax
may be laid, then 1t may be provided that
the rate for men whose income is above
sNOO shall be 80 per cent. OF the eX-
cess. and for those whose income is above
$1,000 il shall be all Of the excess. In
other words, ii comedies that Congress is
without limitations, and may despoil those
who have property as 1t pleas es.
II this principle is conceded as one OF
our constitutional law, then private prop
ertv viii have no protection whatever
except what the will of the majority
may concede TO It. and We apprehend
that a most damaging blow VIII have
been dealt 10 our institutions.
u is not possible TO even conjecture
what the decision of the court will be,
but We present our readers this morning
a statement of the points that are made
against the tax and the answers to them.
The first argument presented against the
act is this:
The Constitution forbids Congress TO
impose any direct tax. except in proper
ton to population. The income tax is not
levied with any reference TO population,
and those who assail the law say il is
clearly direct tax. This. they say,
makes the act void Those who main
taia the law reply hat the Supreme Court
has already held, in the Springer and
four other cases. that the former income
tax was not direct tax, direct"
taxes being those only which are levied
either upon persons by the head, or
upon land. The supporters of the act
think themselves unassailably entrench-
ed at this point But tho assailants say
the Springer case was wrongly decided,
and they ask the court 10 override IT, In
the light OF the better understanding OF
the question that now exists. They
say also that the present law has feat
ures different from the former law. The
present law taxes incomes derived from
land. and this. they say, makes the tax
direct" /; is replied that il this is
so, It will only render invalid that part
OF the law imposing the tax on the in
comes from land. leaving It in
fun force in all other respects.
The next objection TO the law is that
It j. not uniform" The Constitution
provides that 'al duties, imposts and ex-
cises shall be uniform throughout the
United States" II IL argued that. as
this bears on persons only whose income
s. above 5000. II is not uniform; that II
discrlminates between individuals and
corporations taxing the latter in many
cases where II exempts the former. For
example, they say. If five persons. doing
business as partnership. have an In