West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1907-08-29
SENATOR In ERROR
6EvERlooE MIXED ON SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
Possible 20 Tax Both Incomes and
lnheriHnees-oemoeratic Party
Would Lift the Burdens
from the People.


Senator Beyeridge, while on his way
TO get married. called recently on
President Roosevelt at Oyster Bay,
and Immediately afterward gave out
a statement on the subject OF taxa
ton. I'm the course of which he made a
misstatement due probably TO the ex-
element natural In young lover on
the eve OF marriage. He said: The
Supreme court has declared the prin-
ciple OF an income tax unconstitu-
tional"
The Indiana Adonls was evidently
intending TO say that in the case OF
Pollock vs.. Farmers Loan and Trust
company the court had made such
declaration. But I'm that case, Chief
Justice Fuller said that the power Of
the federal government TO levy an in
come tax by apportionment Is "plen-
airy and absolute" Q5S u. s., COLI
The court simply held that taxes on
real estate were indisputably direct
taxes; and that taxes on incomes de
rived from land. or on personal prop
erty or incomes derived from such
property were also direct taxes. II de-
Nldi lldl AnOht htGllOnb Oh tine w IL
son act laying an income tax were I'M
constitutional because the taxes they
laid were not apportioned among the
several states In proportion to their
respective population, and were there
fore in violation of the constitutional
provisions which require, affirmative
ly, that Representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states which may be included
within this union according TO their
respective numbers" and, negatively,
that mo capitation or other direct tax
shall be laid unless in proportion to
the census"
After misstating the law on this
point, Senator Beveridge says that
the Supreme court has decided that
an inheritance tax is constitutional
So il has. In Scholey vs.. Rev (23
Wallace. 33D. It held that taxes on
SUGGESTIONS could not be distingui an ed
from income taxes. and upheld the
succession tax law of June 80 1864
on that ground. But in the more re
cent case of Knowlton VS.. Moore, the
court held that an inheritance tax was
not direct tax, like the income taxes
on land and personal property, but an
excise, or privilege tax. which need
not be apportioned among the several
states. Q9S u. S., S3) In other
words, the court has held once, and
only once. and then by a divided court
that an Inheritance tax is an indirect
tax like the tariff taxes. We are will
ing to accept this view, since It obvi-
ates the difficulty, raised by the in.
come tax decision, OF reaching large
estates by the federal taxing power
Let us tax both incomes and inheri-
tances Let us tax incomes under the
apportionment clause, and inheri-
tances under the excise clause. But
let us not forget that congress has no
power to tax swollen fortunes, or mod
crate fortunes, for any purpose, except
to raise revenue for the expenses of
the government.
If congress should decide to tax in.
comes and inheritances, or either, It
would be obliged. therefore, to reduce
or abolish tariff duties. But every.
body knows that the loud-talking,
rope.dancing, chain-rattling friends of
the tariff.bred and tariff-fed trusts, do
not intend to abolish the thing they
feed on. II the people want fair taxa
ton, If they want taxation for revenue
only whether direct or indirect, so
that prices will be lower and the cost
of living less. they must rely upon the
Democratic party.