The Falls City tribune., 1909-10-01

sists in the fact that tsose charged
with the duty OF its enforcement
must themselves obey il.
The modern constitutional tinkers
and referendum law makers, inter
pref the formula announced by Mr..
Lincoln as meaning government of.
by. n for the people in their mob
capacity. They have about as clear
an idea of what the great president
meant, and of the true nature of our
government, as the scarlet women of
Babylon, might have had of the i'm
maculate conception. What their
idea would have been of that mira
Gle without a parallel, can be better
imagined than expressed.
| have observed in my wandering
through the word, that there is
hardly anything that exactly suits
everybody; that there are always a
few who, had they been consulted,
would have had things made a lit
tie different, or not made at all.
This class probably were necessary,
or they would MOI exist, but it taxes
the credulty and puzzles the finite
brain sometimes, in conjecturing what
possible good their creation was in
tended to subserye. They are a
curious lot, but not rare by any
means. Generally speaking, they are
long on amendment of other mems
works, but short on construction of
things of their own The fundament-
al law must be amended every time
a fad suggests Itself, that it may
have the authority of the constitu-
ton for its existence. What a patch
work instrument that would be if all
the fool thinkers could succeed in
grating their senseless yaporings up
on it. The constitution is broad
enough in its provisions to author
lie the doing of every act aud thing,
necessary to the well being and hap
plness of the people, and for the
preservation and continued existence
of the government itself, and yet the
thinkers are continually suggesting
this and that addition, to meet some
imaginary emergency, which proper
~ understood, is matter for current
legislation, and fully warranted by the
constitution as it now is.
The income tax amendment now
pending before the tribunal of the
states. is the latest on the list. 1t is
urged that the amendment is neces-
sary because the supreme court of
the United States has decided, that
the constitution will not support a
law of congress imposing a tax on
the income of the people.
In the first place, the court as
such, has decided no such thing. Five
of the nine judges of the court. said
such a law was unconstitutional,
while the other four said it was not
unconstitutional, and with much the
better ~reasonings in support of their
position. The reason urged in the
majority opinion is, that much of
the income of the people is derived
from rents from real estate, and to
tax the rent is equivalent to taxing
the land, which would be direct taxa
ton under the constitution and
yoid-unless apportioned among the
states as provided in that instrument.
The tax is levied on money that
comes into the hands of the citizen as
yearly increment from his estate, of
any and all descriptions, and that is
all there is to it. His real estate is
susceptible of being taxed also, if
occasion require 1t, and then perhaps
the apportionment question would
cut some figure.
The most that can be said of the
question as a judicial one is, that it
Is still open and unsettled. The opin-
ion in the Pullock case is the law