The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-06-15
TAXATION AND RESOURCES.


some personal views Of his own with
regard to taxation and other govern
mental powers. Among other things he
declared himself TO be personally in ia,
vor of an income tax, of q progressive
tax on iuheritances, and in favor of the
conservation of national resources in
coal, oil, and water, as well as the for
ests and the public domain
It would seem, indeed, as If an in
come tax is the fairest of all forms
of taxation. But aside from the in
quisitorial nature of it. and the diff
Guilty of enforcing it with anything like
| the thoroughness that ought TO be done.
we must not forget that the United
States Supreme Court (by narrow
margin, to be sure,) has declared that
the income tax is direct tax and there.
fore unconstitutional as made directly
upon the taxpayer. 1t has been sug-
gested that the income tax as n direct
tax would be entirely constitutional if
1t were divided among the States per
capita. That is 10 say, il in some man!
ner the proper amount of income tax
that could be levied throughout the
country could be ascertained and then
apportioned among the States according
TO the number of their inhabitants.
this would obviatc the Supreme Court s
objection and the tax would be held
valid. That may be true enough, but
we do mob see how in any sort of. fair
and collected in proportion to the popu-
latIon. There are a great many States
In this country whefe with a reason
able exemption, very few people would
pay any income tax at all. and the
amount collected from that State would
be Insignificant. But when imposed
upon the State in proportion to its
population, the people of the State at
large would pay the tax which should
be paid personally by the individual
receiving the income. There would be
nothing fair in this.
Probably, also, under the same logic
and form of reasoning, the Supreme
Court would find the same objection
against progressive tax on inhcri
tances, as advocated by the President
We do not see, as a matter of fact. how
1t would be possible TO levy either an
income tax or q tax on inheritances.
progressive or otherwise, and have il
among the States according
70 their population. For il is not the
population at large that is liable to |
.axatlon under the head of income tax !
'r inheritance tax. II is the person !
who has the income whom il is proper |
o tax, not his neighbor who does not |
lave the income. In like manner it .
5 the heir that has inherited that
should pay the inheritance tax. and
lot the neighbors round about who have
10 share in that Inheritance. The ONLY |
lope on these two points is that the
supreme Court will on further hearing
everse itself, In way, to be sure,
he income tax or inheritance tax would
&c direct tax. Still. there is ample
oom, as was shown In the opinion of
he dissenting Justices of the Supreme
'ourt, for holding that the theory that
irect taxation must be apportioned
er capita does not apply in the case
I incomes; neither need it apply in the
ase of inheritances II the majority
the Justices Of the Supreme Court
ould see their way. as the minority see
heir way, 10 declare an income tax
ntirely constitutional, then this emi.
emily Just and reasonable wav of rails
lg public revenue would be feasible,
nd President Roosevelt q personal ia
or of that method Of taxation could
e put into effect.
With respect TO the other measures
avored by the President in the con
ervatlon of national reserves of coal,
II, water, forests, and public domain,
must be confessed that the PROPOSE.
on for this conservation comes little
tie. The national resources in coal
re very largely parted with The same
true Of oil, and very largely true
3 TO water, Not so much as 10 forests.
ut almost entirely as to. desirable pub {
C domain. The government had all Of ;
,ese matters entirely within it's own
ands to begin with, but the coal lands. ;
j lands and public domain generally, (
aving been subject to entry, have been {
rgeIy taken. The forests also have Z
cen TO an almost destructive degree {
arted with. And the water, so far as
rigatIon is concerned, has never been
ken under the jurisdiction, especial Q
, Of Congress until the passage of the t
rigation act. There is, of course, and 7
ways has been, certain jurisdiction q
yer navigable streams that has been
iercised under national authority. And c
ere have been improvements made
ON time to TING in rivers or creeks. .
good many of them not navigable
reams, either; but on the whole there 5
IS been great laxity on the part of
ongress in all these matters.
We do not believe that it is worth
hile for Congress to bother very much a
'out what is left of the forests. SO
r as timber wealth is concerned. For
t reserves are well enough In a way