The Grenada sentinel. [volume] (Grenada, Miss.) 1868-1955, 1907-07-20
SENATOR IN ERROR
REVERIDGE MIXED ON SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
Possible to Tax Both Incomes and
Inheritances-Dcmocratic Party
Would Lift the Burdens
from the People.

-
Senator Beveridge, while on bis 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
misstatement, due probably to the ex-
element natural in a young lover on
the eve of marriage. He said: THE
Supreme court has declared the prin-
cipIe of an income tax unconstitu-
tional."
The Indiana Adonis was evidently
intending tt say that in the case of
Pollock VS.. Farmers Loan and Trust
company the court had made such a
declaration. But in 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" (15S U. S., 601.)
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. 1t de-
clared that those sections of the VIII
son act laying an income tax were un-
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 apportAoned among the
several states which may be included
within this union according to their
respective numbers" and, negatively,
that mo c%apitation or other direct tax
shall be laid unless in proportion to
the census"
After m%isstating the law on this
point, Senator Beveridge says that
the Supreme court has decided that
an inheritance tax is constitutional.
So it has. In Scholey VS.. Rev (23
Wallace, 331), it held that taxes on
SUGGESTIONS could not be distinguished
from income taxes, and upheld the
succession tax law of June 80, 1854,
On that ground. But in the more re
cent case of Knowlton VS.. Moore, the
court held that an inheritance tax was
not a 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. (198 u. S., 49, 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 1t 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 in~heritances, or either, 1t
would be obliged, therefore, to reduce
or abolish tariff duties. But every
body knows that the l~oud-talking.
rope-dancing, chain-rattling friends of
the tariff-bred and fairfield trusts, do
not intend to abolish the thing they
feed on. If 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.