Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1907-07-18
SENATOR IN ERROR
REvERIDeE MIXED ON SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
Possible to Tax Both Incomes ard
ACCOMPLISHMENTS Party
Would Lift the Burdens
from the People.

Senator Beveridge, while on his way
to get married, called recently on
President Roosevelt at Oyster Bay,
and immediately afterward gave out
a statement on thc subject of taxa
ton, in the course of which nc made q
misstatement, due probably TO the ex-
citement natural in a 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 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 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 ap%portioned 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 Beverage says that
the Supreme court has decided that
an inheritance tax is constitutional.
So it has. In Scholey VS.. Rev Ga
Wallace, 331), 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
not a direct tax, like the income taxes
on land and personal property, but ar
excise, or privilege tax, which neeC
not be apportioned among the severa
states. (19S U. S., S3) In othe'
words, the court has held once, ant
only once, and then by a divided court
that an inheritance tax is an indirec
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 larg
estates by the federal taxing power
Let us tax both incomes and inherl
tances. Let us tax incomes under tn
apportionment clause, and inner
tances under the excise clause. Blu
let us not forget that congress has n
power to tax swollen fortunes, or MOI
crate fortunes, for any purpose, exceT
to raise revenue for the expenses
the government.
If congress should decide to tax il
comes and inheritances, or either,
would be obliged, therefore, to reduc
or abolish tariff duties. But ever!
body knows that the loud-talkin!
rope-dancing, chain-rattling friends
the t%ariff-bred and fairfield trusts, d
. not intend to abolish the thing the
feed on. If the people want fair taxi
ton, if they want taxation for revenu
/ only, whether direct or indirect, S
that prices will be lower and the co!
: of living less, they must rely upon tn
Democratic party.