The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-13
COMING HOME TO RoosT.


the United States in the income tax
case, holding that all direct taxation
must be apportioned on the basis Of
population, is having a logical sequence
in the contention Of Hallett Kilbourn,
Of Washington city, that congress has
no constitutional power to levy a d.
rect tax upon the property within the
District of Columbia, and he makes out
very strong case! He cites the pro-
vision Of the constitution giving con-
gress exclusive legislative control Of the
district and Of the3sites Of forts, dock
yards and other needful buildings
within the jurisdiction of the several
states. This limits the Jurisdiction OF
congress. 1t has no powers save those
granted it in the constitution. In the
district it is merely the trustee Of the
people of the whole country. The resi-
dents Of the district are not citizens of
any state, but Of the United States.
merged by the, constitutional provision
into the great body of the people. He
court holding that all the authority OF
congress to legislate for the district
is confined to the said provision of the
constitution. 1t has not, like the leg
islatures of the states, inherent, orig
inal, absolute sovereignty.
Congress levies q tax of SO on each
$l,00o valuation Of real estate in the
district, of which the property pays
one-half and the national treasury the
other half. When congress assumes it's
power Of levying g. direct tax, it Is
limited again to the provision Of the
constitution providing that it be made
upon per capita basis. No direct
tax can be laid by congress that is not
operative over the entire country, and,
therefore, 1t cannot single out the dis
trict and lay a direct tax there only
He closes his argument with citations
from the income tax decision. "The
requirement of the constitution is that
no direct tax shall be laid otherwise
than by apportionment;;" that congress
must impose direct taxes by the rule Of
apportionment and indirect taxes by
the rule of uniformity" He proceeds
to show what tax the district would
pay under direct tax laid constitu-
tionally- Under the census of 1890 the
population Of the district was 23O, 1893,
and of the whole country, 62622, $50,
the proportion Of the district to the
country being as 1 to 272. The tax
laid by congress on the district for five
years has amounted to SIS, SAC, 400, an
equal sum having been paid from the
federal treasury. Under the constitu-
tional provision for direct tax and the
supreme courts construction of that
provision the district should have paid
but 1-272 of the $15.0G0,OOO or s114,311, the
excess being an Illegal tax extorted
without warrant of authority in the
organic law under which congress acts.
The argument is more than ingenious;
it is a logical aftermath Of the income
tax case decision. and, If the obiter
dictum of Chief Justice Fuller in that
case-that it was one Of the things
understood when the constitution was
framed and adopted, that no direct tax
should be laid by congress-is sound
law, congress has no authority to levy
any tax whatever upon the citizens or
property Of the district, except the in
direct taxes of the customs and inter
nal revenue. We hope some property
owner Of the district will contest the
tax and drive the supreme courts
chickens home to roost