The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-09

ne zcz1E carolina Aerfs1fl-S y nov
wrestling with q proposition to establish
AZ income tax IN THAT state: ard. Judging
from tie expressions OF opinion by ths In
1lvi6uaI unernoe-s o, the legislature. ire
prospect. are strong for ths passage % the
measure The hil under discussion pro
vsses for . levy es the following proper
tons: A tax OF per cent On incomes over
ard above g sc ard Up 20 ss.oo. II Ger
cent. on incomes % g 90 and ever Up 20
s., 80. Per cent On income. OF 1850 ard
over Up 20 sie.pco: 81 per cent on incomes
OF 90 ard over ~ TO sis.eo. and Per
cent or incomes over siS.o0e.
In this matter the Democrats. who are IN
an overwhelming majority In tire South
Carolina legislature. are q; least consist
ent. which f. more than car Be said for
thoss in other states In which they contrd
rhs legislative bodies.
TIE Democratic party. An sts national
platform and in the state platforms in
many o. the states. has pronounced itself
a. IN favor OF an income tax. Il has bean
tine and tine pointed out that the income
tax 6ecision rendered By The supreme court
ga not forbid the imposition OF income
taxes By state governmental On the con-
trary. one strong ground for ths decision
that the Federal government was not
vested with constitutional power 20 levy
such a tar, was because income taxes are
direct taxes. and are thus Of the kind re-
SERVED 70 the states 70 impose for the pur-
pose % raising their own needed revenue.
The decision, IN fact. was affirmative Of
the principle o, state rights. so long con-
tended for by the Democratic party. and
consequently ought TO have been welcomed
by those who adhere to that political faith.
While. however. Il has been admitted
tina; states have the undoubted power 20
impose income taxes for their own .eye-
nue.. and while the Democratic party is
committed TO the imposition OF such taxes.
&c a matter OF policy. South Carolina Is
the only Democratic state which has taken
the initiative In attempting TO establish
such a system Of taxation.
This clearly shows thai the underlying
sentiment which gave support 10 the Fed
eral income tax proposition was purely sec
tional in its character. The upholders OF
Federal income tax supported II because
they believed that II would increase the
tax burdens OF one section OF the country.
while not seriously affecting the others.
The object was 10 make the older states.
where the bulk OF the accumulated wealth
of the country lies, pay more than their
proportlona,e share of Federal taxation
And yet this Is precisely what the pro-
visions OF the Federal constitution were
designed 70 prevent When the words,
mo capitation or other direct tax shall be
lad. unless In proportion to the census
were inserted in that instrument. the OBJ
y!ous purpose was TO prevent the poorer
states from laying heavier burdens upon
their richer sisters than they would have
10 endure themselves. Population. not dis
triaution OF wealth. was made the sole
method by which the contribution OF d.
rec, taxes from the several states could be
secured.
IL the Democrats honestly believe In the
principle OF income tax, II would seem
IS though it were n matter OF relatively
smaE importance whether such taxes were
collected for state or for Federal purposes.
As the great majority OF the Democratic
states carefully refrain from ievying such
a tax for state purposes. while clamoring
that Il be imposed for Federal purposes. I,
would seem perfectly clear that their OBJ
1ect Is 10 evade the constitutional .nhih!-
ton and make the Weather states con-
tribute a direct tax 20 the Federal govern
ment. on the basis OF wealth. not popula-
ton; and that the principle OF an income
tax. fer any other object than this. has no
particular support n the Democratic
ranks