Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1910-07-22
THE INCOME TAX.

The income tax amendment to the fed
eral constitution has a rocky road to
travel Georgia has recently ratified the
amendment, and the poll now stands eight
states for and eight states against the
amendment in its present form. Those
that have ratified the amendment are
Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Oklahoma. Maryland, Mississippi, and
South Carolina. In MASSACHUSETTS, and
Rhode Island it was rejected by both
branches OF the legislature, and in New
York, Louisiana and Virginia by one
house, which made action by the other
unnecessary. In Connecticut, New Jersey
and Ohio the legislatures adjourned with
out voting on the amendment OF the
eight states recorded in favor of the
amendment it will be seen that all are
Southern with the exception Of Illinois.
1t is probable that in time most of the
Southern states will be in line for the
amendment.
Only two states, Vermont and Texas,
will hold legislative sessions this year.
AS it will take but five more states in
opposition to defeat the amendment and
2S to secure its ratification and its en-
bodiment in the constitution the chances
against 1t are at least FIVE to one.
The opposition has centred rather on
the construction of the amendment so
ably analyzed by Governor Hughes of
New York, than upon the merits of the
proposition as 1t was undoubtedly in
tended by its authors. 1t looks now as
If the measure would have to be care
fully revised and the doubts as to its
effect removed before it can become a
part of the constitution. Even then the
feeling that the taxing of incomes should
be retained as a resource for the several
states may prevail against it.
The Republican state platform this year
had nothing to say on the income tax
proposition. and leading men of the state
have discussed it rarely in public. An
important exception to this rule how
ever, was Chief Justice Rowen of the
Vermont Supreme Court, who spoke very
pointcdy on the subject before the Yer
mont bar association, saying in part
Il want to say a few words about
another thing that should interest you as
lawyers, and concerning which l think
you have a duty to perform. There is a
growing spirit Of unrest manifested in a
I ulSIH Llbll 10 bItdk away from lle re-
straints OF law. This is a dangerous ten
dency, especially as il extends not only
| to law in general, but to organic law as
well, both state and national. And so it
| has come to pass that if a constitution
/ stands in the way Of accomplishing a
| thing, the remedy is thought to be to
| amend it, If haply it is not ignored alto
| gcther. We have an illustration of this
| now pending before the country The
| constitution of the United States pro-
| vides, and has always provided that di-
rect taxes shall be apportioned among
the several states on the basis of popula-
| tion. Some years ago the Supreme Court
Of the United States held that taxes or
the rents and income of real estate and
| on personal property and its income were
direct taxes within the meaning of the
| constitution, and therefore void II moi
apportioned as therein required.
Il am not opposed to an income taN
whenever it is necessary to have one, bu
! am opposed to amending the constitution
so as to allow Congress to lay one with
out apportionment regardless of thu
source from which the income is de
rived. I especially think that the mat
ter OF incomes should be left as a sourc,
of revenue for the states when needed.