The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-03-22
rRE INCOME rAx AxENDMxsr.

4 Legislature tee more ,la'ly 10 10 aeea
thst the language used W supsrfcta
equivocal. dangerous and inexpsdient.
even II The eTisting constitutional differ
ence between direct and indirect taxaa
ought to b. removed. The Constitution
a. " Ia declares that all lsviss OF contritu-
lions imposed by Congress on real OF per-
sonal -property.- OF on itR income. are
'direct- taxes Tho Supreme Court %
adiudRed in IseA and " 10 the law The
sum ~ such a tar must he apporeionsd
among tue States and its quota aalagned
tn each for payment according to tn
! population. II the population of all the
States IL now eOOOOlOO0. u Congress wishes
tho same number ~ dollars. and u Nevada
has 1000 people and II New York hss
/ sOn0.Ooo then the former must collect
IN its own way and pay into the national
treasury slOO.CnO and the latter ts.0OO.00O.
That - the Law of the land Il shows that
In time n war Congress can quickly put
under contribution all the pec'Iniary re-
sources oG the country.
The proposed sirteenth amendment at
tempts 20 divide direct taxes into two
PARTS, which are tn ~ ~ taxes On real and
personal property and CsD taxes on In
come from whatever source derived
and then to leave the former Tn he appor-
toned as now. but the latter are NOT to
he apPortioned as they now must b.
Why is the difference Nobody has in
formed the Legislature.
Your Baltimore correspondent Mr.
Machen asked with irresistible forcs
whether or not the income taxes must. 10
the proposed amendment shall no ratified.
be laid with geographical uniformity over
all the country or incomes IN one STATE
may he taxed al one rate and with one
exemption. hut in another State a. diff
ferpnt rate and with diHerent~xsmption.
No one in the Legislature can answer
any more than he can satisfactorily
explain why there IL - he . separation
b~tween taxing property and taxing its
income.
| Another startling aspect of the pro-
p,rsed amendment has been revealed.
which u that under II Congress can tax
incomes derived by Justices of the su-
preme Court from their salaries. An un-
restricted power 20 tar II a powor 70 do
stroy The court could. II - true. dsclars
unconstitutional n tax on their -oompaa-
sation.- hat such an issiIe would hs un-
seernly and discreditable to the country.
The proposed amendment declares that
ever source derived
II does not appear that the court has
ever heard argument At the hsr and de-
cided that. under the Constitution 40 II 10.
Congress cannot by taxation diminish
the compensation ~ any Federal Judge.
/ but /, IL found in the record oR the Pollock
| case that IN iSs5 an incorne tai was as
.essed an the salaries of the Justices
| thief Justice fancy protested tn the
Secretary ~ the Treasury. Mr.. Chase.
| against the exaction because forbidden
| by the Constitution. No reply was made
| - the protest ard on March ~. Is8s. the
J court ordered the protest inscribed IN
/ it, records. subsequently,. in 1872. new
| laWs seemed intended to tax the salaries
I ~ all civil officers. and Attorney General
Hasr was aSked nv the Secretary - the
/ TreaSiIry Mr. Boutwell, whether the salary
: ~ = Federal Judge was taxable under the
Constitution a. w. then was NJ rsplied
~ tho negative ami the Treasury 40
auie~ced
But that ~ no, all 10 has been dis
: closed that the literal language ~ the
proposed amendment will enable Con-
zre-- tn diminish hy taxation the COM
pen-stion 81 any President IN Office when
the tax j. laid Did President Taft
intend that when he recommended an
amendment - the Constitution tn
permit an Unapportion~d income tar in
order Ia promote the then pending tar1N
revision
Senstor Root may argue that the now
amendment will not Affect any other
article m the old Constitution hut Gov.
crnor Hughes l. equally certain that "
will Zach of them has heen very prop
cry mentinned ~ ~ ~ 30 Chief Justice
when there IL vacancy in that great
once
Under the Old Constitution the question
has I~pn this Which property. salary
nr inro'ne has h~en 10y the Constitution
withdra VII from taxation The question
will ha the same under the new Constitu-
ton n amended a. proposed. In the
answer Governor Hughes and Senatpr
Rort disagree
Many who are discussing that dis
agreement aaem ~ think that the presen,
Constitution forbida NV expressed words
Congress to tax instrlImentslities ~
state and = state to ta~ the instrumentali-
ties ~ the nation. whereas tho contrary
j. the fact The fOrbihding has been
made hy the supreme Court and has i've
foundation in an inpIica;ion. chef Jus
tice Marshall declared when announcing
the forbiddinR that tho resy-on~ihilifv
then on the count was awful very
unusual adjective for him to use Tho
court then ierlared that c~rtxin Federal
Instruments Titles had heen withdrawn
from state taxation. and subsequently,
announced that certain incomes derived
from state insfr,Innentaliti~s had been ~
the Constitution slso Withdrawn from