Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-05-21


 The customs receipts particularly are surprisingly low. During last January thav -Gs.5ned only $17, 36l, ,916, and during February they fell to SIS, 33s. Is0. Dur ing March there was an increase of about S2, 500 GOO, but April showed n falling off to $l2. 453, 0S6. During the same months there has been a slight increase in the TO- ceipts from internal revenue resources, those for April being Sl0. GAS, $50.
 The deficit for the fiscal year on Jan, S1 was $34, 246 36. On Feb. 9 this had on April 80 to about S4b, 25o, 900. The deficit up to today Is S5l. 048, 5S4.
 Chief Justice FuIler's Opinion.
 Chief Justice Fuller, in the course of his opinion, said:
 The very nature of the constitution, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall in one of his greatest judgments, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated and tho minor ingredients which compose those objects be doduced from the nature of the object themselves. In considering this question, then. wo must never forget that it is a constitution that we arc eNpound- ing. As heretofore stated, the constitu- ton divided fodoral taxation into two great classes-the class of direct taxes and the 
 prescribed two rules which qualified the grant of power as to each class, The power to lay direct taxes apportiunod among tho several states in prnpuitlon Ia their repro sentation in the popular hranCh of con gress, n representation Easnl on popula- tion as asCurtninod by tic census. was plenary and absolute. But to lay direct taxes without upportionment was forbid den. The power to lay duties impoSts and oxcises was subject to tho quahtica- tlon that the imposition must bo uniform throughout the United States.
 We know of no reason for holding oth- erwise than that the words direct taxes" on the one hand and duties, imposts and eXciSes,' on the other, were used in the constitution in their natural and obvious sense, nor in arriving nt what those terms embrace do We perceive any ground for enlarging them beyond or narrowing them within their natural and obvious import at the time the constitution was framed and ratified.
 And, passing from the toxt. we regard the conclusion reached as inevitable when the circumstances which surrounded the convention and controlled its action and the views of those who framed and those who adopted the constitution are consider ed.
 The chief justice next discussed tho req sons for the constitutional provisions re- garding direct taxation. The state had plenary powers of taxation, he said. hut gave up tho great sources If revenue de- rived from commerce and retained the power of levying taxes ana duties cover ing anything other than exciscs. but in TO. spCct to ihCm tEe range uf taxation was l narrowed ny the power granted to tho led erai guVG-umcNt over lntUrS ato commerce.. While they e Intoi tho power If ap?UrtiOn. ing dirrC; t&<n:i, n thoy scc"rod tn the | states the opportunity to pay the amount | aplurti med and tA roCuuD fro:l lhoi- own | citizens in tLo must feasible wty.
 The constitution ordained aEigmativCly | that representation and direct taxes should bo arpurtiunld among the several states according tn nulnbCrS. and ne gatiVoly that no dil,ct tax should Do laid otherwise. The founders anticipated that tho expenses | of the federal government would chiefly be met by indirect taxation. They knew | that the power tO tax involved the power to destroy. Tho opinion continued: It is | said that tax on tho whole income uf property is not a direct tax, but a duty. l We do not think su. Direct taxatluu was not rCStrirto,l in ono breath and tho ro- striclion blown Ia the winds in anothcr. " Tho chief justico said that, >incc the court had lc!d unanimously that the To. l coipts from mul.r Il bonds could net ho taxed trCausp t., .,nUs were instruments | of the states, thy -'f H rulo apll.rs tu rrvc- nue from ut! or (, not subject tO tho 1 tax, and tEv .A,h ., 'wCr tO levy any but an apportionuI t"A nn real and personal l property equally exists as to the revenue l therefrum.
 The court does moi understand. 1t says, | that the income tax has ever been regard ed in England as other than direct tax. | Taxation by Apporti"nment Conceded. The power tu tax real and personal prop, | erty and the income from both. through l IpportiOnmcnt, is conceded that such Il l tax is a direct tax in lLo i;tcluiug of the | constitution has not trUu and. in oul | judgment, cannot ho successfully denied, | and yet we arc thus invited tn hesitate in | the enforcement of the mandate Of the con | stitutiun, whicE prohibits congress from l laying n direct tax on tho revenue from | property of the CitiZon without regard tc stato lines and in such manner that the states cannot intervene by payment ir regulation of their own resources lest ( government of delegated powers should be found to he not less powerful but les: absolute than the imagination of the ad vOcato had supposed.
 We arc not here concerned with tho question whether an income tax be or b' not desirable. nor whether such tax would enable the government to diminish taXe. on consumption and duties on imports anC to enter upon what may bo believed to bG n reform of its fiscal and commercial sys tenn. Questions of that character belong to the controversies of political partic: and cannot be settled Ey judicial decision
 In these cases our province is to determine
 whether this income tax on the revenue property does or does not belong to tht class of direct taxes If IL does, it Is bc- ing unapportioned, in violation of the constitution, and we must so declare. | Differences have occurred in this court differences exist now-but thOrS has nOvel been n time ia Its history whom therO has been c difference of opinion as to Its duty to announce It's deliberate conclusions un affected by considerations not pertaining to the case in hand
 Equal Suffrage For States.
 If it be true that tho constitution should have beon so framed that a tax of thi: kind could be laid tho instrument defines the way for its amendment In no par of 1t was greater sagacity displayed. Ex | cept that no state. without its consent can be deprived of its equal suffrage in tn, senate the constitution may bo amendeC upon the concurrence of two thirds of botl houses, and the ratification of the legisla lures or conventions of the several state
 or through a federal convention, when ap
 piled for by the legislatures of two third
 of the states. and upon lik0 ratification
 The ultimate sovereignty may bo thu
 called into play by slow and deliberat