The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-15

zeosrazhsczI CONSIDERING the ;sxt" He
continued:
IL Is apparent taat x the word Uni
form means equal gzt Uniform Il tire
sense zoz asserted bT ire opporsrts O.
re tax, the words Throughout the United
States are deprived Of al real stgni1-
cance z-z sustaining the zozts11ioz E1Jzst
hence lead 70 : disregard o tls sss-el-
ta-y canon q construction whic1 re-
cuirss that effect De given 20 each word
q TIE constitution
~Ous q ths u0st satisfactory answers
20 tha argument that the uniformity re-
cufre5 by Ire constitution is tie same as
The equal and Uniform clause watch has
since been embodied IN 50 many q the
state constitutions results from a review
q thz practice under the constitution
from rhs beginning From the very first
congress down 70 the present date n lay
ing duties. iupos1s and excuses. the rule
5f inherent uniformity or. II other words,
intrsnsscalIy equal ard uniform taxes hzs
been disregz-dz5 and the principle % geo
graphical uniformity consistently e.
forced
IT Is yet further asserted that the tax
does not tulau the requirements 0f geo
graphical uniformity for the following
reason.
las the primary rate of taxation de-
ponds upon the degree OF relationship Or
WANT u ErAGAAll--l-AE 10 9 L-INd--f4 pr
son, 1t ts argued that 1t carnot operate
with geographical uniformity, inzsnuch
as tsstarertsry and tnteStscy laws may
di@er in every state. II Is certain that
the same degree OF relationship or want
of relationship 20 the deceased wherever
existing Is levied on az the same rate
Throughout the United States TIE tax
Is hence uniform throughout the United
States. despite ire fact that different coz
Gitions among the states may obtain as
70 the objects upon which the tax Is lev
led -
The Progressive Feature.
With reference 20 the objections TO the
progressive feature of the law. Justice
White said.
The review which Te have made ex-
hfbits the fact that taxes imposed with
reference 20 the ability Of the person up
on whom the burden Is placed 70 bear the
same. have been levied from the fourdz-
ton Of the government So. also. some
authoritative thinkers and a number OF
economic writer's contend that a progress
i've tax IL more just and equal than a pro-
porttonate one. In the absence Of constt-
tutionaI limitation. the question whether
81 IS or is not is Legislative. and not Judi
ctal TIE grave consequences which Il is
asserted must arise in the future Il the
right TO levy q progressive tax be recox-
nized. involves in its ultimate aspect the
mere assertion that free and representa-
tive government IS a failure. and that the
grosssst abuses OF power are f0reshzdox-
ed unless the courts usurp a purely legis-
iztiye function II case should ever arise
where an arbitrary and conHscztorr exae-
ton is imposed. bearing the guise Of
pro greSsfvs or any other form OF tax Il
viii be time enough to consider whether
the judicial power can afford a remedy
by applying inherent and fundamental
principles for the protection % the indi-
vf9uai. even though there he no express
authority in the constitution 70 DO 90
That the law which we have construed az
fords no ground for the contention that
the tax is arbitrary and coufscaiory Is
obvious"
Concluding. he says:
1T follows from the foregoing opinion
that the court below erred In denying all
relief. and that II should have held the
plaintiff entitled 20 recover 50 much OF
the tax as resulted from taxing lexacses
below 81. 90 and .rOra increasing the tax
rate with reference TO the whole amount
Of the personal estate Of the deceased
from which the iegacies or distrfbuttvs
shares were derived -