The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-20
Voice Of the People.

4 Strong Argument Against the In
come Tax Amendment.
Editor of The Times Dispatch:
Sir,-No more important matter Will
be submitted to the attention OF the
Virginia Legislature at this session
than the question OF the ratiicatton
OF the proposed income tax amendment
10 the Federal Constitution, yet it
has created little or no interest or
comment amongst the people. or even
in political circles. That the Legtsla
;ure will ratify the amendment seems
to be generally accepted as a foregone
conclusion.
The purpose OF this communication
is TO point out as briefly and conclsely
as possible certain objections 10 the
amendment that appear TO be very SCI
give pause TO tho people OF Virginia
before it Is ratified.
propose TO consider only such Oh
tections as may be made TO the amend
ment in the particular form in which
IT is presented to the States for ratI-
ncation. though much might be s;ad
against its general policy. -S
The proposed amendment reads as
follows The Congress shall have
power to lay and collect taxes on in
| comes. from whatever source derived
without apportionment among the sew
eral States. and without regard to any
census or enumeration.
The Constitution at present provides
that direct taxes" shall be appor-
TONED among the several states in
proportion 10 their numbers. as fixed
from time TO time by the census, but
that duties and exercises OF "indi-
rect taxes shall be uniform through
out the United States.
Under this rule II we suppose the
United States 10 have Il population of
so 600 900 people. of whom 100000 re-
side in Virginia and 100000 in New
York. and Congress wishes to raise
a9o,000000 by direct taxation, $1,000
600 of this sum must be- levied IN
Virginia, and' only $50 ss.ooo,ooo IN New w
or fifteen times the wealth OF Vir-
sinia. The rule is impossible Of just
application. and therefore direct taxa
| ton by the Federal government is nov
never attempted except IN times Of
| great distress.
So impressed were the early judges
and law-givers with the inpractica-
hility Of this rule governing direct
Hylton VS.. United States, 3 Dali. I'll
the Supreme Court of the United States
! held that no taxes were direct with
in the meaning of the Constitution
save only capitation Cor polD taxes
and taxes on land. thus cXemptinG
from the rule taxes on personal prop
| erty and on incomes. which were sub
ject as indirect taxes, TO the rule oi
uniformity, instead OF to that of ap-
! portlonment.
After a century of such decisions
4 the announcement. In 1895, that the
supreme Court, In the famous income
tax case had reversed It's rulings. ant
had held that an act of Congress tax,
i ing incomes uniformly throughout thu
country was void because a tax on in.
| comes was direct ta&s and as sucf
subject to the rule of apportionment
l came with a shock of surprise anc
CONSERVATION.
The effect OF the decision was Il
destroy the right Of Congress to ia,
1 incomes except under the Impractical
i BILE rule or apportionment applicabl,
pose of the proposed amendment il
to restore to Congress the power. Il
tax incomes without. regard ito tn
rule, Of apportionment But il seek
come tax an indirect tax (Which wa
the view held prior to 1880. ali,
81 therefore subject to- the constitution
al rule of uniformity applicable 4
taxi by exemptlng 1t from the rule O
, appOrtionnent.
The trainers OF the Federal CorSsti
tuition considered that unless they re
, lcvying taxes, 1t might be able t
: levy them without regard to Justice
ana hence they expressly provided tina
, ,,hhalreet taxes should be uniform
) under the proposed amendment, tn
4 income tax Is not made an indlrec
9 tax. and is not required to be uniforrl
) throughout the country. If the tw
e provisions be read together, the in
! terence seems clear that Congress
d not REQUIRED to levy the income ia
i, uniformly. but may. il 1t sees fit. ia
incomes IN one section of the coun
Try, While exemptng from taxation til
e incomes of persons la another sectioI
e II Is no reply to this objection TIA
n sucll action by Congress Is inlprob
+ h APIS Occasions have sarisen in GU
history and may arise again, whe
a Congress might welcome the eNercis
j. OF such power. Not so reasone
n our fathers when not trusting to til
{ good sense or to the good Intention
q OF Congress-. they rendered it foreyc
. impossible by constitutional restrir
i lions for Congress to levy an indlres
v tax otherwise than uniformly. Can "
!, do better than follow their eXa1nnl
! But grant for the moment that ui
], der no circumstances would ConareS
4 ever choose TO levy the tax in
g fashion so boldly partisan and ,,rius
n Int may accomplish the same end una,
e, cover of the exercise OF u discretio
q as to the sources of income to be TIA,
L ed, The proposed amendment confel
~