The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-09-20
THE INCOME TAX.


than the intolerance and wanton inso-
Ience of the tight money advocates OF
the North in their newspaper vapor-
ings over the present political situa-
tion. The dissemination of their SLAYER
ing TRADES raises the gall of Southern
men with asmuch swiftness as does the
impudent declaration of Bourke Cock
ran that the silver movement is a con-
spiracy of the farmers that farm with
their jaws, and the uneducated slave
holders of the South. The Democratic
party is a party of anarchists" be.
cause of that plank of it's platform
which touches upon the income tax
decision. That plank is as follows:
"There would be no deficit in the
revenue but for the annulment by
the Supreme Court of a law passed
by a Democratic Congress in strict
pursuance of the uniform decisions
of that court for nearly one hum
bred years, that court having in
that decision sustained constitu-
tional objections to its enactment
which had previously been over
ruled by all the judges who have
ever sat upon that bench. We de-
clare that it is the duty of Congress
to use all the constitutional power
which remains after that decision
or which may come from its re-
versal by the court, as it may here
after be constituted, so that the
burdens of taxation may be equal
Nv and impartially laid, to the end
that wealth may bear its due pro-
portion of the expenses of the gov
ernment."
We lately discussed one phase of this
question. To-day we seek to call atten-
ton specifically to the state of the
law prior to the case of Pollock VS.. The
Farmers Loan and Trust Co, 157-15s,
U. S. The question hinges upon the
words, direct taxation" in Art. 1,
section 0, subsection 4, of the United
States Constitution.
'gNo capitation, or other direct tax
shall be laid, unless in proportion to
the census or enumeration hereinbe-
The Constitution as originally adopt
ed, contained the following: "Repre-
sentatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States
which may be included in this union,
according to their respective members,
which shall be determined by adding
the whole number of free persons, in
Guiding those bound to service for a
number of years, and excluding In
dams not taxed, three-ifths of all
other persons.-Art. I, section 2, SUBJ
section 3. Then follows the provision
for census.
But i'm 1866 the Fourteenth amend
ment was adopted, in these words:
Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several States according to
their respective numbers, counting the
whole number in each State, eXclud-
ing Indians not taxed" etc.
When the great grievance of the
American colonies was taxation with
out representation their con-
tention was that taxation and repre-
sentation should go hand in hand, it
at first seems strange that the amend
ment which is framed in almost the
language of section 2, subsection 3,
and was manifestly intended as sub
stitute for it, ignores all reference to
direct taxes. Why was this? The an
swer is simple: The court had by its
long settled policy so construed the
meaning of the words direct taxes,
that the matter was thought too I'M
important to bring forward.
The first case was Hylton VS.. United
States, 3 Dali. III, decided in 1896,
which presented the question whether
the tax laid upon carriages by the act
of 1894, was a direct tax. The judges
then upon the bench were Ellsworth,
Chief Justice, and Charles Patterson,
Iredell and Wilson, and Cushing who
did not sit. Ellsworth was sworn into
office on the day the decision was an
nounced and took no part therein. The
other Judges unanimously decided
that the tax was not direct tax. I'm
der that decision no lawyer can deny
that the recent income tax was not
direct tax.
In Pacific Insurance Company VS..
Soule, z Wallace, 433, the question pre-
sented was whether the duty imposed
come of insurance companies, was a
direct tax. A unanimous court de-
cided that it was not.
In Veazie Bank VS.. Fenus, s Wall.
533, the principal question was wheth-
er tax on State bank notes issued for
circulation was a direct tax. The
court, through Chief Justice Chase,
held it not to be a direct tax.
In Scholey VS.. Rev, % Wallace, 331,
| the question was whether duty laid
| by the act of June 30, 1864, as amend
ed, upon SUGGESTIONS, was tax, not
mere duty or excise tax.
In Springer VS.. United States, 102 u
/ S. $50. the statute under review levied
tax upon gains, profits and income
derived from every kind of property
and from every trade, profession OF
! employment. The contention OF
Springer was that this was direct