The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-15

Interference With the Powers OF n
State Nor Void for Lack of UnifOr-
mity-Mr. Justice Brewer Dissents.
The inheritance tax case of Buffen, ct al.
VS.. certain tax collectors. coming from the
Circuit Court for the eastern district of
New York. was decided by the Supreme
Court yesterday The tax was assaulted upon
the ground that 1t was a direct tax, and
therefore void The contention was held
by the court to be without effect. 1t was
attacked on another ground, that its impo-
sition by the Federal Government was in
interference with the powers of a state.
A similar law was enacted early in the his
tory of the country. said Mr.. Justice White,
and was sustained by this court. The law
was also attacked for the reason that 1t
violated the uniformity clause OF the Con-
stitution by its progressive provisions, and
was therefore void This contention, said
the Justice. was held no. to be good. Geo.
graphical uniformity was what the Con-
stitution required. Assessing taxes &C
cording to the ability of the person taxed
to pay them has had Congressional
sanction from the beginning Of the Gov
eminent The remedy for the matter, said
the justice. was Congressional and not 1u-
dicial. Constituting the act. MIR Justice White
said, IL was an exact copy of the act OF
1854. That act was interpreted by the Su-
preme Court and following that 1t was de-
clared that the law of 1898 laid tax on
legacies as such, and the rate was not to
be determined by the total amount of the
estate.
In the course of the unusually elaborate
discussion of the points at issue Mr. JUS
tice White referred to the legacy act Of
1897, which continued in force until 1902.
and to that of 1862, the latter of which
formed the basis of the present. This dit
fered from the law of 1862 only in the pro-
gressive or graded features. and in the
limits of estates and rate Of taxation. The
income tax law OF 1894. the justice said.
was in one respect the legal equivalent OF
legacy tax, but 1t was held to be uncon-
stitutionaI for the reason that taxation
upon incomes from real estate and from
personal property was {. direct tax and
must be apportioned. Upon the question
of the power Of Congress to levy graded
or progressive rate of tax, the Justice
said that that principle had had the sane
ton of legislative authority since the be-
ginning of the Government.
Constituting the statute.
Coming to the construction Of the stat
ute, Mr.. Justice White said: 1T is at the
outset obvious that the exact meaning
of the statute is not free from .perplexity.
as there are clauses in it, when looked at
apart from their context. which may give
rise to conflicting views. 1t is plain. how
ever, that the statute must mean one
of three things. viz:
First, the tax which 1t imposes is on
the passing Of the whole amount OF the
personal estate, with progressive rate
depending on the sum Of the whole per-
sonal estate; or, second, the tax is placed
on the passing of legaeies or distributive
shares of personal property at progress
sye rate, the amount OF such rate
being determined not by the separate sum
OF each legacy or distributiye share. but
by the whole volume of the personal es-
tate. This is the mode in which the tax
was computed by the collector and which
was sustained by the court below; or,
third, the tax is on the passing OF legacies
or distributive shares of personally. with
a progressive rate. on each, separately de-
termined by the sum of each Of such leg
acies or distributive shares
Discussion of this matter occupied the
larger part of the opinion. The law ulder
consideration was compared with that OF
1854 which was construed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Scholey vs. Rev. and
of which the present law was substantially
copy. As a result of the discussion it was
held that the true construction Of the law
was that given as numbered.
Concluding. the opinion discussed the OBJ
lection urged, that the tax was not uni
form as required by the Constitution. But,
said the opinion, what the Constitution
commands Is the imposition of tax by the
rule of geographical unifor nifty. not that
in order to levy such tax objects must be
selected which exist uniformly in the sev-
eral States. In conclusion, the opinion
reads:
Lastly, it is urged that the progressive
rate feature of the statute is so repugnant
to fundamental principles of equality and
justice that the law should be held VOID.
even though 1t transgresses no express
Limitation OF the Constitution
lit ia apparent that the argument as TO
the enormity of the tax is without merit.
Taxes imposed with reference to the
ability of the person upon whom the bur-
den is placed to bear the same have been
levied since the foundation CT the Cove: n
ment. SO also. some authoritative thinkers
and a number of economic writers contend
that progressive tax is more Just and
equal than proportional one. The grave
consequences which it is asserted must
arise In the future IL the right to levy
progressive tax be recognized involves in
its ultimate aspect the mere assertion III
free and representative government is
failure. and that the grossest abuses of
power are foreshadowed unless the ccui IS
usurp purely legislative function.
Ink Not ConAscation.
THAT the law we have construed affords
no grounds for the contention that the tax
imposed is arbitrary and confiscatory, is
obvious
The judgment of the court below was re-
versed, and the case remanded with in
structions to give relief in accordance with
the opinion.
Mr.. Justice Brewer dissented as to the
validity of the progressive feature.
In the Illinois and Pennsylvania cases,
owing TO the fact that no question rs TO
the construction Of the statute was raised
in the trial, the judgments of the courts
were affirmed
Mr. Justice Shiras announced the decision
of the court in the case OF Plummer, execu-
tor, vs. Bird Coler Comptroller Of the
city of New York. An inheritance tax was
assessed upon the legacies left by Plum
mer's testator. Plummer opposed pay
ment on the ground that the estate was
composed OF United States bonds, ard that
they were not subject to State tax. The
lance tax had reference only to the amount
of it. That view was sustained by the
Supreme Court and the judgment affirmed.
In the cases of George T. Burkett VS..
George G. Ward Collector of tho Southern