Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-01-14

| ciplcs of our Eoycrnmcnt, just because
In tho language OF n chief Justice, q
government OF delegated powers should
be found to be not less powerful but
less absolute than the imagination oil
| the advocates OF governmental power
| had supposed
With all Difference 20 the legal accu-
mon and general learning OF my es-
| teemed friend. am inclined to think
| that he places the emphasis upon the
| wrong POINT in supposing that the ree-
| son for desiring an income tax is TO OK
tend the powers OF the Federal gov
ornmont Tho proposed amendment.
II carried. win of course have that cf-
feet but tho primary purpose is the
collection OF revenue for tho support
OF the government; and since any gov
ernment must have at least enough
power to support itself by Legitimate
taxation. the extension of the power OF
the Federal government far enough To
enable II to 1evy such taxes as are
necessary TO that end does not seem
to be dangerous but merely a neccs-
sary. extension of its power to tax.
In the course of his able argument.
Mr.. Young quotes the words OF the
Supreme Court:
First, we adhere to the opinion al
ready announced that taxes on real
estate being indisputably direct taxes.
taxes on the rents or income OF real
estate arc equally direct taxes.
Second. we are of the opinion that
taxes on personal property, or on the
income OF personal property, arc like
wise direct taxes.
Third the taxes imposed by sections
q to 81. inclusive. of the act OF 1894, so
far as II falls on the income OF real
estate and Of personal property being
a direct tax In the meaning of the Con-
stitution, and therefore unconstitution-
al and void, because not apportIoned
to representation"
1t Is true that. according to tho Con-
Stltution, any federal taxes must be
apportioned according to representa-
tlon; but if federal taxes are to be
laid at all on property, they should bo
collected from incomes and not from
each person as a unit and irrespective
of his ability to pay. The proposed
amendment is intended to shift the bur-
den of Federal taxation from a per
capita basis to a property or income
basis. At present the Federal taxes
arc indirect. being derived largely from
duties on imports and on liquors and
tobacco. The sugar tax of nearly two
cents per pound, is typical of this
method. Any one who consumes
pound Of sugar pays two cents tax
upon 1t, II the article is imported. or
two cents in extra price II II is pro-
Is littlc difference In the relative
amounts of this article consumed by
wealthy or by poor person, 1t amounts
practically to per capita taX-so much
per head or roughly. according to
representation"
Mr. Young quotes the claim of those
who opposed the first income tax law.
They held that taxation should not
only he uniform. but should be equal
and impartial and that the law WAS
invalid for imposing a tax upon In
come that was received from state and
bonds. which was in viola
tion of n great, unwritten principle
that the government should not tax
the instrumentalities of the states, nor
tho states the instrumentaliucs of tho
general government"
But tho equality contended for In the
argument just quoted IS more In favor
of mere uniformity than OF equality in
the sense of requiring each to pay
according to his ability to pay and ac-
cording to the amount of protection he
receives. from the government. Thus
4 tax on sugar or flour would be uni
-orm and equal In its operation. but
Sould be a hardship to the poor and
In tho nature of an immunity to the
-ich
1t Is to give Congress the power, In
5ase 1t ever wishes to use that power,
o tax incomes, that the present amend
nent is proposed. 1t does not mean
hat an income tax is to be imposed |
light away, nor, indeed at any time |
t only means that Congress shall
lave the right to tax incomes II OF |
when it shall decide to do so.
This proposed amendment Is a result |
II the decision of the supreme court,
Iolding invalid the act of Congress OF
Aug. Is. 1894, known as the income
ax law, This law provided that after
an. 1. 1900. there should be assessed
nd paid annually upon the gains.
roflts and income received in the pre-
eding year by every person residing
n the United States. a tax of 2 per
entum on the amount so derived over
nd above $4,000.
This Is the law that was declared
unconstitutional for the reasons quoted
bove from Mr. Young's address The
roposed amendment reads as follows:
''The Congress shall have power to
evy and collect taxes on incomes.
rom whatever source derived, without
pportlonment among the several
tates. and without regard to any CEN
US OF enumeration"
This amendment is necessary because
ubdlvlsion three, section two of the
of article one. provides
hat Representation and direct taxes
hall be apportioned among the sever
i states which may be included within
his Union" And the first paragraph OF
ection eight reads: Congress shall
ave power to lay and collect taxes.
uties, imposts and eXclses." and "all
uties. imposts and eXcises shall be
inform"
Justice and equality according to the
yealth of the people are, as 1t occurs
o me, of more Importance than un-
'ormity according to the number of
he people.
In brief, Mr.. Young has shown that
he former income tax was Illegal but
ot that 1t was inequitable; that 1t
ras not uniform. but not that 1t was
hereforo unjust.
II Is. however, precisely these un-
oticed phases OF the proposed amend
nent that should be borne in mind