The Washington times., 1909-07-23
JUSTICE BREWER AND THE
INCOME TAX.

INCOME TAX.
In the development Of representative
government. the authoritative platform
pronouncement has come TO have a
larger and larger place It is the
medium through which public attention
is called to a thousand policies, pro
grams, proposals, more or less tenta-
tive, which it is desired to have the
people think about. Mr.. Roosevelt was
the great American exemplar of this
method of popular appeal. In Great
Britain it is as important a part of
the mechanism of administration and
political management as is the ministry
or the political club
The President, the Supreme Court,
and Congress cannot very we'll have a
tripartite debate on the income tax, to
thresh out their various views. That
would not be dignifed, nor very desir-
able. The President, however, desiring
to give the public his views on the sub
ject, may accept an invitation to make
a speech somewhere, and then may de-
liver his income tax opinions. Congress
has ample opportunity to voice its
feelings, because its business and its
method is talking. The Supreme Court,
in recent times, has adopted the public
speech method of notifying the country
of its general views on public questions,
and it is most timely. therefore, that
Mr.. Justice Brewer, who has many
times appeared as the voice of the
great court, should at this juncture be
making an address ou income tax.
The forum chosen for his deliveranee
was the meeting of the agents of the
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company, Of which the justice is a
trustee. 1t viii inevitably be assumed,
as it probably should be, that what Mr..
Justice Brewer said about the income
tax was intended to be representative
Of the present-day opinion Of the. court.
If so, it is highly important, because
it indicates that the court is still
despite changes in its personnel, OPP
posed to the theory of the income tax.
We have come through a long con-
sideration Of the question whether the
Supreme Court, as now constituted,
would be willing to change front and
reverse the Pollock case and sustain
an income tax. President Taft has ex-
pressed the opinion that it would do So.
Probably q large majority Of people
have believed with Tim. Yet 1Ir. Jus.
tice Brewer makes very plain, if he is
speaking for the cours as a whole, that
it viii do nothing Of the kind.
In substance the argument of the dis
tinguished iurist is that the Constitu-
ton designed a certain division Of
powers and responsibilities as between
the States and the Federal Government.
He points out that when certain Iimita-
tions were placed about the power Of
the National Government % levy an
income tax, it was zone in order to
make sure that that power should be
conserved in the States. tt is likely
to be necessary 10 them, as a means
Of raising revenue ON which their
existence might depend To take away
from them such a vital power might,
he suggests, give the Federal Govern
ment power to tax the States, not out
Of their existence, but out Of their
vitality" The States. he urges. ought to
be indestructible parts Of an indie
structible union. To take away the
power of maintaining revenues is to
take away the power of home rule from
the States and, adds the justice. "home
rule is enc of tine best things TO be
recorded" And IN conclusion:
q know this is not the mcdern
thought, but some judges say things
which are not popular; some are really
obstinate. We very often have 90 say
things which are not popular. And it Is
well that we do"
If that means anything at all it
means that, speaking for the bench,
Justice Brewer has emitted an answer
20 the inquiry how the Supreme Court
ands on the income tax at present;
he seems to want to make clear
its view has rot changed since
pollock case.
course, an amendment TO the Con
on viii be direction to the
Even the Supreme Court can