New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-10
THE CORPSE NEEDING BURfiL

The closing argument of Mr.. Choatc on the
income tax was worthy OF the great occaHl"h'
though il did not cover the whole case. II re-
called the mind from the musy historical de-
tails the hairsplitting definitions. ana the IN
warranted assumptions Of officials representing
the Government, 10 the broad question oi me
power II Congress- to disregard fundamental
compromise Of The Constitution. In spite of the
historical treatise by the Assistant Attorney
General as to The technical or legal meaning OF
the words direct taxes" there can be no donpt
that in the minds IF the people ana ~ the trainers
of the Constitution the taxation Of properly ana
the taxation OF consumption were two distinct
fields of which the latter surrendered Ia the
General Government for the sake Of forming
more perfect Union" while the former was re-
served, except supposedly in great emergencies
10 the States for the protection Of their indie
pendencc. and the rights Of their citizens against
opprcssion by the people Of other sections. Hut
for this great compromise the Constitution could
never have been ratified. Necessarily this com
promise extends. as Mr. Choatc argues 10 all
property whether real or personal. II II -
direct tax to take per cent of the value Of land.
il is equally direct tax To take per cent oi the
value Of cattle ships. bonds, or the myriad cor
brought into being Attorney General Olncy
himself comedies that there could he no right 10
tax personal property directly, II not 10 tax real
estate.
Nothing could add 10 the power or Mt 'hoit's
reasoning that lie decision against TAXATION or
incomes from land left the income tax mangi'd
corpse which ought 10 be buried ont OF ssh'.
lie brought out strongly the outrageous Unequal
ity resulting Of necessity from the failure 4"
reach more than half the incomes designed 10 be-
reached, aud no man can doub, that Congress
would have rejected the tax altogether, " II had
been forced 10 vote whether a tax on other IN.
comes should he levied. with incomes from land
exempt Mr. Ch,atc assumes that the decision
OF April against taxation Of land incomes VIII
not be altered. and while " is or course. comedy
able that Justice may have changed opinion
on that polri there is greater probability mat
those who went that far may now be prepared
TO advance 10 III. legitimate logical conclusion
that with land incomes unaHci. the Who'll" TAX
on incomes becomes unequal that 1t cannot be
upheld. and 50 palpably contrary to the wishes
Of It's supporters that In It's muila'cd CONDITION
Congress would not have enacted II.
A Treasury official now casts some Hight upon
the probable effect Of the tax by admitting that
the attempt to enforce the law ~ II stands Will
subject the Government TO enormous expense
and interminablc litigation, with no prospect OF
realizing more than about S7WO.WD from the
mutIlafcd law When II Is considered that II Is
impossible to separate the part of incomes Of
great corporations which they dcrlv" from real
estate. when they necessarily use real estate In
common with other property In order 10 derive
any income. II may appear that the estimate Is
not too low. In the interest OF the Treasury, as
In the interest Of the people 1t may now be hoped
that the Court viii conclude 10 bury the corpse
and maintain inviolatc one Of the most inpor
tant compromises Of the Constitution.