The Washington times., 1903-08-10
Condemnation for Union Station.

To the Editor Of the Washington Times:
In The Times Of the 9Th inst. you say that
the construction Of the proposed union railroad
station, provided for by the act Of Congress
approved February %, 1903, is a national rather
than local project, and that the District Of
Columbia ought not TO be obliged to contribute
so largely toward it.
Now. l wish 10 say that if il is a national
obiect-h the appropriation for that object can
be placed on the ground that it is to pay the
debts provide for the common, defense or
general welfare Of the United States-then no
direct taxes could be laid or collected in the
District 10 meet the appropriation, unless they
we're laid in conformity to the rule Of appor-
tionment established by clause 4 of the 9th
section OF Article l Of the Constitution. For
as Chief Justice Marshall declared in the old
case Of Loughborough agt. Blake, ''the prin-
ciple Of aPPortionment established in the Con
stitution secures this District from any oppres-
sive exercise Of the power to lay and collect
direct taxes"
| Congress, acting the municipal legislature
| Of the District, may, indeed. lay direct taxes
on the lands Of the people Of the District for
District purposes purely, without violating the
1 rule Of aPPortionment, 50 long as those pur-
poses are not IN violation Of any other part Of
the Constitution; but it cannot lay such taxes
for the general welfare Of the United States
unless in proportion to the census provided
| for in the Sd clause Of section Of the same
article, where it is also declared that repre-
sentatiyes and direct taxes shall be aPportioned
among the several States which may be in
cluded within this Union, according to their
respective numbers.'
The latter clause does not exempt the Dis
trict from direct taxation for national purposes
provided the taxes are laid on all parts Of the
country alike; but the two clauses considered
together do exempt it from such taxation for
national purposes, unless the States and Terri
tories are made 20 contribute their quotas pro
pOrtiOnately and according TO the constitutional
principle Of apportionment.
! The opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the income tax cases-157 L. s.,
557 and I5s L. 5, 6OI-also support my CON
tentiOn this point.
But there Is another point involved in this
controversy. Private property cannot be taken
by taxation for any but public governmental
use; and whether any particular use is such or
not, is a judicial question. The courts Of New
York, Iowa, and Wisconsin strongly uphold this
position. And since legislature can do in
directly what II cannot do directly. II follows
that money collected for public and govern
mental uses exclusively cannot be devoted TO
private quasi public uses. even though the
right Of eminent domain may be exercised in
favor Of quasi public Since the union
station act devotes sI,5COOO0 Of public money
to the uses Of private corporations, it may we'll
be doubted whether that act is constitutional;
for the provision respecting due process of law
has been held 70 apply TO the taking Of private
property for such uses.
JOSEPH BRADFIELD.
Washington, Aug s.