New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-08
so much was made by counsel for the complain
ants Mr.. Whitney said:

of consumntion and therefore indirect. accord
ing to the theories Of the last century. taxes on
chooses In action were not common! sasieu uaXes
the famous English Stamp act OF 100 and the
other similar acts Of that cenlur! IN Great
Britain. and as shown also by 'ne ,nl,eu states
Stamp act Of 1881 That stamp duties were
duties and not taxes. recognized by the franz
ers OF the Constitution. Is SHOWN also IN tne
printed debates and Luther Maruh famous Iet-
ter. All o. these matters are set forth IN our
historical argument
The question considered matter OF specula-
ton after the decision OF the Hylton case was
whether a tax on all personal property. at a valu-
alton. would be a direct or indirect tax Tne
latter would have been the doctrine OF the econ
omsts OF that day. while the former, 10 Juose
from the debates that have come down TO US.
would have been the view OF many OF the reading
men in the Northern states NO sucn YAK mas
ever been proposed. except during inc ueoa'cs oi
1898 and 1861 Each time 1t was proposed TO lay
the tax as n direct tax under the rule OF appor-
tionmcnt. on the first occasion II was dcfehtcd
with only eighteen affirmative votes on inc sec
ond occasion II was defeated on the consutu-
tiOnal ground alone. the dcbatcs showing clearly
that the tax would have received the support OF
the whole House II constitutional; and IN the dc,
bate OF 1861 the income tax was seectcd instead
Of n general personal property tax because " was
believed 70 be the only constitutional way 10
reach tho income from real ana personal properly
as Il whole. This constitutional debate ended
with an amendment cutting down tho direct TAX
onc-half and extending tho list or personal
property upon which internal duties are lad, so
felt" The bill was not enacted. the direct ana
income taxes Of that year having come IN as n
Senate substitute TO tho Hous" Tarin BIZ. inc
following year tho direct tax was abandoned ana
an income tax substituted for the whole scheme
EXCEPTIONS AND DISTINCTIONS.
Discussing the exceptions and distinctions
made in the law. Mr.. Whitney said that prac-
tically there was no difference between the cor
poration and the individual. because the former
was always treated as an individual. While
upon the matter Of the exemption OF incomes
under 1900 from the operation Of the law.
Chief Justice Fuller asked counsel what he un-
derstood TO be the reason for fixing that limit.
Mr. Whitney responded that he supposed IL
was based upon the principle laid down by sir
Robert Peel John Stuart Mill. Senator Sher-
man. and others quoted in the briefs. that
consumption tax fell most heavily upon the
very poor and that in laying an income tax
Il should be imposed upon those best able 10
bear II. Another principle upon which III might
have been made related to the case OF collect
ing the tax and the amount To be collected,
purely administrative matters-in tho c"nSiu-
Grafton Of which II was thought better 10 take
the highest amount But Is that n matter Tor
the colr; TO take cOgnizance Of" he asked
He would not argue that such limit might De
fixed would warrant construction ny 'hs
court but as between one and two. or two ana
three or three and four. there was no question
raised Of the rcasonableness of the limit
As to the exemptions IN me , ,aW Z. " WHIT
attention to the fact that they were not origi-
nally in the law. were not placed there by It's
friends, but by its opponents. one was SUE
gcsted by Senator morrill,. one BY senator 'uI-
lom and another by Senator Hill. upon grounds
Of public policy and philanthropy. IL was ar
gued that TO tax incomes from savings banks
would tend TO discourage habits OF thrii' ana
accumulation and In relieving some Of the CO.
operative institutions Of the tax. others WIN
great accumuations OF money had also escap'n'
But without going into these in detail. MT. W MT
nev called the attention Of the court 70 inc iohS
line OF decisions UNFOLDING the power OF Congress
to make exemptions In general
Justices TO consider the whole case. includ'ns
the questions OF tax on rents as II IT had never
been before them. and II 50 doing they ghve
due weight to all the facts and the law. there
was no doubt in his mind what the judgment
of the court would be-
MR. OLNEY CLOSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Whitney finished at 2:20 o'clock. and was
followed by Acknowledgement Clney who
closed the case for the Government In support
OF the law After recapitulatng the arguments
advanced on behalf Of the United States at the
former hearing. he again contended tha''
Judged by the language Of the law its''l u
did not create a tax which was necessarily 10
be deemed tax on real estate The OPINION
~ the court he said. dealt with the Gaze as II
rents were the only subject Of tho Income Tax
law-as IL all the rest OF the statute werc
emitted and II simply provided for assessing
landowners according 10 their rents. Ihat was
not he submitted. the true way ~ looking AT
the matter.
Blu, eupposc II TO be adopted. what follows'
We then have a statute dealing with landlords a =
a cIass-tnxing hem because Of their cation "i
landlord and measuring the tax by rents ac'u"l'E
received such n tax was perfectly lcSitinit" ana
perfectly familiar. There was not calling or
rrrsult I'm life which not subject 10 ~ az IN"
w,ll Of the Legislature. II had actually appI"d I"
almos, every conceivable occupation or employ
ment. from that Il the reverend clergyman to mat
81 The travelling tinker Moreover, Il was n =
legally speaking. "A tax on properly 81 any H'''
real or rers nal. II was tax on me Gaining OF
cmrlovnon, Itself so that the merchant who PAID
n tax as merchant had ~ legal GROUND 81 com
plaint on the score Of double taxation b"cau"' n"
was also required TO pay tax on MS st'vH II,
trade. Even II this statut" were 70 DC 'pn"'ru'n
inst az II all there was t. II VAS sinp" Prov
sion for n tax upon landlords ncasur"l ny i"n's
received. the only consequence vas 'ha' W" i'"u
tax which was not necessarily real es'ht" 'ht
nor n pr0urrty tax Of any sort but when couil
be and should be sustained az tax In respect 81
particular occupation lie contenncn ,n', 10 can
The income tax a tax on lands WIS as much
misnomcr as 10 call II bond tax or STOCK TAX or
a tax on merchandise IL was an assessment upon
,hc taxpaycr on account Of his mon"y-spendihg
power shown ny MS revenue III NV ''" '''
ceding the Assessment
REALTY AND PERSONALITY.
Form. IL was said. nothing. substance
everything and therefore. TO tax the revenue OF
land. which was personally and taxable by ore
constitutional rule was the same thing as to tax
tho land itself which was taxable only BY another
constitutional rule But. he asked. was not This
reasoning fallacous and mischicvous 10 the last
degree? II the distinction between personally ana
realty in the matter Of taxation was made by the
Constitution !tself-and that is the necessary as
eumntion Of the argumeni-where did this Court
get the authority to set II aside az matter OF
form? No authority existed. OF COURSE Ih', ON
a,t,,,tonoi determination bet ween realty and per-
sonaIty for taxable purposes would not exist II tne
trainers Of the Constitution had not considered j.
60 &, ,hoi, dav ar whether or not II had ceased TO
he go since this court could clearly not 90 other
wise than observe and enforce It. 1t might be
yae tho e,rnc thing 10 the landlord pecnniarily as
a tax upon the land Itself But that was assured,
| " no reason for dsregardlng the constitutional
distinction and declaring tax OF the one SOFT "