New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-21

re- rect s'tD What light derive from w the
agree upon NOTHING? What right have we to con-
the Constitution in the light OF th esae 70
ascertain the true meaning OF the %or raard nor
TAX AR, OF 70 fbe words themselves but the con-
nccon in which they are used In the Consst1m,
and to the conditions and circumstances eHls,nss
when the Constitution was formed and adopted
shall refer to them very briefly The Only sunJcSt
OF direct taxation prevailing at the time was land.
The states did tax some artices o, ,bs
erty but no established RUE exsteI On 'ne tbe
ject BY the With Article OF Coniedera,lon tne.
OF common fund or treasury. to be supplied oy
the States according TO the value OF the gia.,eu
to he estI,ated or the assessment be made by
the Congress In such mode as they should deter
There r 1 was direct tax directly laid the value
o. all the real estate IN ne cSuny me ne nower
Of enforcing It's assessment All u could DO after
arriving at the assessment or estimate. was 70
iher r ,'s quotas They were That
say direct tax in all It's essential tea'Ites
taxation ! the general source OF revenue.
INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION TRAINERS.
Now / say II is proper assumption for us 10
assume that when the trainers OF the Constitution
adopted the rule as TO apportionment they haa
reference to some subject or species OF taxation
that prevailed generally throughout the states IL
never contemplated by them 10 reacn py Wst
taxation subjects Of partial dis,rip tha nnpor,on
would be thought or direct TAX anu
ment thereof laid upon cotton at 50 mucn 80, na,s,
upon tobacco at so much a h9ssh1eau, up b ,iee OF
apport.onng that tax on property non-eXisilns N
majority u the States be utterly frivolous anu aO-
Not only was land TIE subject OF general dlsr.oa,,
ton evidently in the minds OF the trainers Ok
lee, OF Irect taxation under the conteieration Brs
the time Of the adoption Of the consIoh income
tax in the State OF Delaware no genera lax OF
1 1ss am nS OF the Constitution forward
into the future 81 as 20 contemplate anu ,hsma
think not II was ten OF eleven years AFTER inc
adoption o. the Constitution before me En mn,sr
the leadership Of Mr.. Pitt The question then arose
TO which the Chief Justice has reterrei ny re-
gard to the from which 1t sprung; fnan
question was ed hat he public dividends should
be pail fres OF any charge whatever, ana M,.
r,meta2 law whether he proposed to reach or could
reach income from those stocks. lie said the "oruss
S r cnns,rucion was that you should not look
al all the nature OF the source. nnt ina, ~; 10
income tax simply the relation 70 the receiver az
much income This eons.ructon was oes
an on put In IN Rsat T GaSstonc as ciaco Of n:
Exchequer resisting win all h's s snsecs beforS
Tho House Of Commons that the construction OF
Mr. PIT was undoubtedly correct These opinions
OF judicial authority but they snow VIVA. uem y.
Now / say that must ASSUME that tne lra, 1Ier
of the Constitution In providing ior me appo, .,er
or srbiects-matter which had some SenefI. us
tribltion among the states. Any Other supr s,
sition would put them INTO an an stara BY
the-bve il was assumed AT THAI Gay % ,, on
IN. po,itical writer's that there was sp.'' -, con.
between population and land. But there .s 10 ~ anT
necton. direct or proximae. between aton-none
AMI incomes OF personally and nopu.Ia,no,. =, ears
whatever They did not have any relau9n . - mr.
other al the time the Constu;i on was auop.on' Iii
have they ever hal since, and perhaps never WA
"''e' TAXEs OK RENTS AND LAND
Again II Is settled by wc..-con.iiorei au,hc',.''
that a tax on rents and on the lana i'sV. -
no, dunlicate taxation The authorities IN H"e
and in this country hold that tax on relt am nssS
on land are different things BESIDES tle .ransth
CAGES TO which have not the time nor VIZ - hInson
20 refer there is a well-ccns:cred case - ',,h-
agt the County OF Allegheny, IN barr, WI" ,son n
| SON was the Chief Justice OF that court " ~
lease fee OF certain premises was ,'', 40 dcmised
! ant covenantng to pay he rent on a'v no, hoth
premises tax was laid by the state up 3n ov ~.
land and rent. and the question afosr mno, MA,
tenant eyer under tina; express covSs'"rrs, IT. s,
bound to pay the tax on ne ,a'' US not: that
preme Cour; OF the State he'd tina, ne was % ,nae
there were two separate ana dstinc, a NV nav q,
pendent subjects matter: that his covenat, "
the dernsel premises I'D not eAtepd q" wy ~ ,.rd-
| OF the tax charged upon me rent against ~
owner. ~ ho
Again we cannot attribute to the trainers 0, ra.,
Constitution any intention 10 make any taN 80
tax which IL impossible 10 apporton. !, NC MAJ
not be apportloned without gross injustice we M a..
feel assured that IL Ia tax never contemplate ~
, the Constitution direct tax ,,,, ,,v
No tax therefore. can be regarded as ulreoe ~ T.,
in the sense OF that Instrument which Is incapaDa'
OF apportonment by the rule OF numbers. The con-
Confined on Fourth Page.