The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1907-07-19
SENATOR In ERROR
BEVERlDGE MIXED ON SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
pcsIibe to Tax Both Incomes and
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Party
Would Lift the Burdens
from the People.

Senator Reyeridgc. 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, IN the course of which he made a
misstatcmcnt 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 Adonis was evidently
intending to say that In the case OF
Pollock VS.. Farmers Loan and Trust
company the court had made such
declaration. But In that case. Chief
Justice Fuller said that the power Of
the federal government to levy an In.
come tax by apportiOnmcnt IS "plen.
AIRY and absolute" CljS L. s., G0l)
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.
crty or incomes derived from such
property were also direct taxes, II de.
ClaTcd that those sections of the VII.
son act laying an income tax were un.
constitutional because the taxes they
laid were not appnrtiOned 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 appurtioncd among the
several states which may be includes
within this union according to they
respective Numbers" and. negatively.
that no capitation or other direct tax
shall be laid unless in proportion to
the census"
After misstating the law on this
point Senator Beyeridgc says that
the Supreme court has decided that
an inheritance tax is constitutional
So It has. In Scholey VS.. Rev C23
Wallace, 33lJ, It held that taxes on
SUGGESTIONS could not be DISTINGUISHED
from income taxes, and upheld the
succession tax law of June 30, 1864,
on that ground. But in the more re-.
cent case Of Knowlton VS.. Moore the
court held that an inheritance tax was
on land and personal property, but an
excise or privilege tax, which need
not be apportloned among the several
states. G9S t. s., So In ether
words, the court has held once, and
only once, and then by divided court,
that an inheritance tax Is an indirect
tax like the tariff taxes. We are will.
ing to accept this view, since 1t obvi.
ates the difficulty, raised By the in.
come tax decision, Of reaching large
Let us tax both incomes and inheri.
tances, Let us tax incomes under the
apportionment clause, and inE ri.
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.
II 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 loudtaking,
dancing, chain.rattling friends Of
the tariff,bred and tarifffed trusts, do
not intend to abolish the thing they
feed on If the people want fair taxa.
tion. II 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.