The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1895-06-06

erected. not TO be occupied by tho
owner. but for the sole purpose of
being rented. Near by are other
persons, trusts, combinations, aud
corporations, possessing vast guam
titles Of personal propertv-such n.
the bonds and stocks Of railruad,
tel graph, mining. telephone, bank
king, coal oil, gas, aud sugar rvfin-
ing corporaiions-from which mil
lions upon millions Of income ARE
regularly derived. In the same
neighborhood are Others who own
neither real estate nor invested pei
sonsl property, nor bonds. nor stocks
of any KIND, and whose entire income
arises from the skill and industry
which are displayed by them in par
ucular c.llings. trades. or profes-
sions, or from the labor of their
hands, or the use Of their brains.
And II is now held that under the
Constitution, however urgent may
be the needs of the government,
however sorely the administration in
power may be pressed to MEET the
moneyed obligations Of the Nation,
Congress cannot tax invested per
sonal property, nor the income aris-
ing either from real estate or from
invested personal property, except BY
tax apportioned among the States,
on the basis Of their population,
while 1t may compel the artisan, the
workman, the artist, the author, the
lawyer, the physician, even the min
lister of the Gospel, no one of whom
happens to own real estate, invested
personal property. stocks. or bonds,
to contribute directly, and under the
rule of uniformity or equality, from
their respective earnings, for the
support OF the government
"The Attorney General of the
United States very appropriately
said that the constitutional exempt
ion from taxation of incomes aris
ing from the rents of real estate,
otherwise than by direct tax, ap
portloned among the States on the
basis of numbers, was a new theory
of the Constitution, the Importance
Of which to the whole ountry could
not be exaggerated. If any one has
questioned the correctness of that
view of the decision rendered on the
original hearing. it ought not again
to be questioned, now that this court
has included in the constitutional
exemption from the rule of uniform
ity, incomes derived from invested
personal property. If Congress shall
hereafter impose an income tax, in
order to meet the pressing debts of
the nation; and to provide for the
necessary expenses of the govern
ment, it is advised, by tine judgmen,
now rendered, that it cannot touch
the income from real estate nor tn,
income from invested personal prop
ersy, except by apportionment anon,
the States Oh the basis of popula
ton.
"Under that system the people O
State containing 100000 Of in
habltants. who receive annually $50,
100000 of income from real and in
vested personal property would pa
, no more than would be exacted from
! the people Of another State havin,
. the same number of inhabitants, bu
! who receive an income of only s.,
100000. If this new theory of tn
Constitution, as | believe it to be,
, this new departure from the wa
marked out by the fathers, is just
q fed by the fundamental law, tn
American people cannot too 500
!, amend their Constitution.
z NOT AN ASSAULT BY THE POOR o.
e THE RICH.
alt was said in argument that tl
: passage Of the statute imposing thi
income tax was an assault by th
poor upon the rich, and by ever
form of eloquent speech this ceul
. has been urged to stand in the breac
: : for the protection of the just righ
y of property against the advancin
y hosts of socialism. With the polio
: of legislation of this character tn
: . court has nothing to do. That
- for the Legislative branch of the GO
: ernment. 1t is for Congress to d
u termine whether the necessities {
;, the government ale TO be met or Il
" interests of the people subserved |
: the taxation Of incomes. With tn
=, determination the courts can have
u rlghtful concern. The safety of o.
institutions demand that each d
- partment Of government shall ke
u within its legitimate sphere as d
'e fined by the supreme law of the Ian
u We deal here only with questions
n n,S law. Undoubtedly the present ID
.e contains exemptions that ought ne
III er to have been made, but such e
~ emptions may be disregarded Wit
II out invslidating the en- tire Law.
rs it were true that this legislation,
q its important aspects aud in its Z
" sence, Disseminated against the ri
d. because OF their wealth, the cor
oi mig ghs well declare that 1t was repu
IS nant in those principles of natul
We right and equality upon which Q
ne free institutions rest. But il is I
IS IS, of that character. And | may 8
les in answer to the appeals made
III this court, to vindicate the constir
ft tional rights of citizens who o
ng large properties and have large
DIE comes, that there is nothing in ,
nature of an income tax that iustii
BE Judicial opposition to it upon ,
ground that it Illegally discrimins
on against the rich or imposes unC
for burdens upon that clasa There
M tax ubich in It's cas- .pn<. "a n,