Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-04-22

IS teaching ENI Gness BY denouncing
the Supreme Court for it's ~.ecisiOn Ia
the income tax case" quote again
from him. And il the people are to be
taught to discredft the processes Of our
courts. and to AistFust the decisions Of
our highest judicial tribunal, We shsuid,
as members OF a party that enjstns
obedience TO law and respect for its ad-
ministration and enforcement REFUSE to
engage In the crusade. What is the
platform declaration OF the Democracy
that calls forth this fnvectivs7 | quote
| it in full. Until the money question
| is settled, we are opposed to any aglta-
ton for further changes In our tarin
laws, except such ~ are necessary to
{, meet the deficit in the revenue caused
by the adverse decision OF the Supreme
I Court on the income tax. But for this
decision by the Supreme Court, thsre
| would be no deficit in the revenue under
the law passed by 4 Democratic Con-
| gress in strict pursuance OF the uniform
| decisions OF that court for nearly one
| hundred years, that court having in
| mat decision sustained constitutional
| objections to It's enactment which had
| previously been overruled by the abiest
! judges who ever sat upon that bench.
] We declare that it is the duty OF Con-
! gress to use all Of the constitutional
, power which remains after the decision,
| or which may come from its reversal
! by the court as it may hereafter be COR
stituted so that the burdens Of taxatieA
may be equally and impartially laid,
to the end that wealth May bear its
| due proportion OF the expense of the
| government"
Is there In this PI&tform declaration
[ the sliEhoeet indication OF a disposition
to discredft or ob4ti1ict the process Of
| our courts? Is there suggestion that
+, II the Democracy should be successful,
that the tax upon Incomes uHAsr the
act Of 1894 would bs levied and collect
ed despite this decisic On OF the Supreme
! Court.
Mr.. Cleveland's so1icitude for the
bank accounts Of Wall street has
led him to see dangers to those bank
accounts that do not exist except in
| his overheated Imagination and and-
ETY. % avoid any possible danger OF
contribution from those who own the
bank accounts, toward the support OF
the government, whose protection they
enjoy, and which they so often and so
mercilessly looted during Mr.. Cleve-
/ lands last administration. Let US ex-
anime the history of this decision, the
criticism OF which, by the Chicago
convention, has SO aroused the wrath
OF those who wish to enjoy the pretec-
ton Of the government, and contribute
nothing to its support, and Of the rep
resentatives OF this patriotic class.
Under the constitution OF the Uni
ted States, there are two classes of
taxes-direct and indirect. The con-
stitution requires that the direct taxes
shall be levied in proportion to the
census or enumeration" and that in
direct taxes shall be uniform" In
1894 Congress passed an act imposing
a tax on incomes. The question was
raised Whistler such tax was a direct
tax to be laid "in proportion to the
CENSUS or enumeration" in which event
the law in question weuad be uneon-
stitutional, as 1t was not % laid, or
whether it was an indirect tax, to DO
uniform In which event the law
would be constitutional, ss the consti-
tutional mandate OF uniformity had
been obsyed. The case went before the
Supreme Court, but it was net a new
! question before that tribunal The
| lea6ing, As we'll as the ArSt case OF this
kind was the case Of fIylton W. the
United States, decided in 1895. Con-
gresx hid imposed q tax upon pleasure
carriages. The question then arose
! whether this tax was direct or an ia
direct tax. The court was then CON-
| posed OF the Chisf Justice and four as
sociate Justices, all OF whom had been
members of either the Federal conven-
ton which had framed the constitution,
| or OF their respective state conventions
| which had ratiAsd ana adopted the
constitution, and seme OF them had
been H,cRbcry Of both conventions.
One Of the counsel for the United
States in this cause was Alexander
, HaMilton. late secretary OF the treas
ury, and who had becn a distingui
| ed member OF the Federal convention
| which framed the constitution ~ well
| as a member Of the New York conven-
ton which ratified and adopted tke
constitution.
| Each Judge wrote a separate opinion,
| except Ellsworth, chief justice, WHO
| had been sworn into offace that morn
| ing, and not having heard The whole
case declined to take part in the do
risier. All tina Judges were unani-
| NOUS. The tax was not direct tax.
! The only direct tax under the coHxti-
! tuition is capitation or soH tax, and
q TAI on land. THIS case WAS follow
ed by four ethers, viz: Pacific IHsur-
! aAce Co. vs.. souls, Vessie bank vs.
| FenRo, scholey VI. Rev, ard Springer
VI, the United gtates. The last Of
! these cases was decided in 1854, and
Judge Gwayne, delivering the unaai-
NOUS opinion of the court, after re-
viewing all the preceding Cases. In
which shs priHciple lsia down in the
Ey1ten case by thssistinsrishedg gentle
man, who had taken q leading part in
framing and adopting the constitution
| OF the United States, wxs adhered to,
| quotes Story. Kent, Ceelsy, Peneroy,
eeswle and Ssrgoeat, In support Of the
doctrines that che only direct tax
! known 70 the constitution Is q tax On
! land, and a caritstisn or poll tax
Judge swayne winds Up by saying:
I'VE are not aware that any writer
since Hylton Us. the United States was
! decided, has expressed q view different
from that OF these authorities" In
spite OF this uHhroksa hne of decis-
iens ruaainE from 1875 % isse hy the
ablest and most distinguish sd jnzrez
who ever sat UPON the sugrsre bench