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

scheme Of taxation are necessarily invalid
The ere s"w viii be
and the cases remdnded, with INSTRUCTIONS ~ s'""'
the relief prayed.
CHIEF JUSTICE FULLEH'S OPINION.
In delivering the opinion Chief Justice ruler
said:
Whenever this Court y REQUIRED to pass upon me
validity OF an act OF Congress AS tested by an, ,ne
imposed demands in s diseharse the Utmost ns
liberation ana care ana 'nV1Nes s.n oc co. When
The quesion Involves the exercise OF grent gov
b. % nc d StEs S, complex
Of goyernmcnt 10 sagaclou4ly framed 10 secure nni
perpetual. IAN in1s." wn hn v@'" hccorc with
an anxious desire 10 omit nothing when ms" suh
any Scs aSS a Ga by further abe Arguments
bodyng The fruits Of elaborate rcs,nren, s"r whis
our former conclusions remain unchansed ,heT
scope must be- enlarged by the accepiahse , Dn Gnn
s',iu,on as Observed by chef Justice MARSHALL IN
Of S sS@' sS"S Ss nark sduT IT'S n
objects designated, and the minor p ,he nature
compose those objects be aed"sI consderng this
question then must never forge, 'ha Miccmuliocn
Constitution that We are exponndns' Mo' "''0N'
VS. Maryland. Wheat. BIG. p'
RESTRICTIONS on TAXATION.
"A heretofore stated. the Constitution DIVIDED
Federal taxation into two great classes the c'as'
OF direct taxes and the class OF duties '"p
and excuses. and prescribed two rules VIII" p
fed the grant Of power TO each CLASS Inc 49,
to lay direct taxes apportoned among "s in the
States In proportion to their Ton based
popular branch OF Congress. represehta1ior wos
uenary and "bsoute but TO lay direct taxes WIN
out apportionment was forbidden dne 70 the
n;a,jdcafion that the imposition must be UNIFORM
throughout the United states. a., . tho con
sdera,on Of validity Of the tax , on the
IT.
such taxation was direct or not IN ,h ne further
of the Constitution ana the " rea estate than
to hold that it fe within the same Class lass az tba t
tax upon the realty and tax upon tne rec rec
therefrom alike direct, wnile as 10 NJ .,xad
come from municipal bonds that could not DC IA H~ y
reference made 10 the nature Vi INV va" "
Oe Ne are eeG now permitted to broaden the field OF
inquiry, and TO determine TO wnen nnt Tr income
Whether derived from rents S SG 9rod soek or or ohe
wise Of real estate or IRON bsonrs and we are
unable to coaclude that the enforced subtraction
p prS% Se IN the prescribed s 50 eren
from uron the property iisei, .hn Meaning Of
a direct but an indirect tax, IN the lheaii"5 Va
the Constitution.
WORDS USED IN THE OBVIOUS SENSE
The words of the Constitution are to be taken IN
their obvious sense and to have reasonable con-
s,ruction In Gibbons VS.. Ogden. Chief justice Mar
shall with his usual felicity, said AS men ""Oae
intentions require no concea!1lehI sciie'"'', ~
p,oy the words which most directly and aptiy eh-
press the IDEAS they intend TO convey. the enl,sh.
ened patriots who framed our CONSTITUTION anu ne
empoyei words their natural sense and 70 hay e
intended what they said y neat AIS LOO the nues.
ton was whether a controversy between two states
over the boundary between them vas WITHIN kline ine
grant of judicial power. Justice BALDWIN. speakiis
For the Court observed THE solution of this gues
ton must necessarily depend on the woros % the
Convention which framed and proposed !, for Or aaoP
ton and II ah 10 1ne aes ore,Her vita
reference such sources OF judicial iniorinatUn
utes. and to which this Court has always resor'ed
IN we Know OF no reason for holding otherwise than
that the words direct taxes on the one hand ana
usea in the Constitution in their natural and OBJ
vious sense: nor. in arriving al Wha' liose, $50
shem Beyond or narrowing them within. their nat
ural and obvious import az the tn1e me frorn
the text we regard the conclusion reached as n
en- Convention and controlled its action and the
views Of those who framed and th9se %no ra
~ reirayei ground already traversed but some oo-
servatons may be acded'
THE ORIGINAL STRUGGLE.
In the light of the struggle in the convention DIS
to whether the new Nation Should De einpo"eieu
To levy taxes directly the Individual uhth al'e'
the States had failed to respond to requisi'io"S
struggle which did not terminate until the a'heh',
Yent 70 that effect proposed by MASSACHUSETTS and
concurred in by South Carolina New -Hampshhire.
New-York and Rhode Island had been rejected. IL
would seem beyond reasonable question that dlrect
taxation taking the place as II oa 1 saeord
ing TO in order tina, the iotner ys
tenn 70 ratio might be retained wh'ie 'ne 'ho'e
This is forciby illustrated by a iette; OF MT MAJ
ison Of January 90 l7s9 recently published. written
after the ratification Of the Constitution but Iot
before the organization OF the GovernWen' anu s.e
which while opposing the amendrnent a. caicuia.eu
to impair the power only 70 De Secssa grouSd
for its rejection bstantiaiy unnecessary since
he says every state which chooses 10 coeet ts W
S eea little beforehand in It's finances and max.
The reasons for the clauses Of the Constitution
In respect Of direct taxation are not TAR TO seek;
Of dhe taSaen they could tax property OF their
citizens in such manner ana 10 suen ene o mposs
duties or imposts on imports from aDroau. anu eX-
cises on @ Se Great source. Of rev
enue derived from commerce. tney resa me-. ne
covering anything other than excuses but In respect
Of them the range Of taxation was narrowel W me
the danger OF being put at disadyantage IN dealing
with excuses on Ihey tbey ooeg g
as their chief but even In resPeet OF 'nat
they the On a me same SUB
ject the claim Of the United states had rec
w they d rega e. their Tn"
resources as States but they grsnneu 'v s az off,
e eaetous ae the needs Of the Govern
roent hut securing 10 the States the opportunity
TO nav the amount apportioned. and TO recoup IRON
their own citizens in the most feasible way anu IL.
harmony with their systems OF local seh-so'ei"-
ment
A SIMILAR BARGAIN IN THE SENATE.
II. In the conditions of wealth and population IN
particular States apportionment produced inequa'y
II was an inequality stipulated for just as the equal
representation of the States, however small IN the
SENATE was stimulated for The Constitution or
dams afirmatvely that each state shall nave TWO
members of that body and negatively that no stare
shall by amendment be deprived OF Its equa. sur
frage in the Senate without consent The Constltu,,
ton ordans afiirmativey that representatives, ana
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the sev-
eral States according to numbers. and negatively
that no direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion
to the enumeration. ,, .
The founders anticipated tina; the expenditures OF
the States, their counties, cities and towns would
chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated
dc fhn1 EPleral