The Detroit times., 1911-01-10

necessary DeIOre the amendment De-
comes part OF the constitution. ~
states can defeat IL. II is expected
the measure Will be reconsidered by
nearly all the states that have hith.
erto rejected il. and that a part Of
them viii yet ratify IT, In recent
statement, Senator Norris Brown, OF
Nebraska. author OF the amendment.
predicted tour of the five states that
had rejected il would eventually rat
ify IT.
What is known as the income tax
amendment is tho proposed sixteenth
amendment TO the constitution en-
bodied ia resolution passed in the
special session OF the Sixty-irst con.
gross in 1903. The language Is as
follows: The congress shall have
power TO lay and collect taxes on III.
comes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the
several states, and without regard TO
any census or enumeration. This is
but a single sentence, but II 1t il added
10 the constitution, IL may have a pro-
found effsef on rhe course of taxation
in this country.
The essity q for the proposed
amendment. (proi iding the country is
to have IN income tax. arises from
the supreme court decision in the IA
nous Pollock case. The court de-
cided that the income tax provided for
BY congress in 1894 was unconstitu-
tional because il was a direct tax and
yet was no: opportioned among the
several states according to their pop
ulation as is expressly provided by the
institution as il now stands. In view
OF the decision in the Pollock case. IL
congress is TO have power TO levy a
tax on incomes, one OF two things
must happen: Either the supreme
court must be induced to reverse IL
self, or the constitution must be
amended
In the first or extra session OF the
Sixty-first congress. which began
March Is, 1909. the most extended
consideration was given to the in
come tax question. A powerful ele'
ment in the senate and the house fav'
ored the revival OF income tax legis'
lation The effect OF this would have
been to put up TO the supreme court
once more the question whether an
income tax could be levied without
apportioning il among the states. In
the senate, an extremely brilliant and
able debate was aroused. Senator
Joseph w. Bailey, Of Texas, for the
Democrats, and Senator Albert b
Cuumins, OF Iowa, for the inSurgenl
Republicans, led the tight TO have an
income tax amendment to the tarin
bill adopted The effort was not sue
cessful but the indirect effect oil the
contest was TO bring about the adop
ton in both houses OF a resolution for
the submission to the states or an IN
come tax amendment, and also q
cause enactment of the present cor
poration tax law.
The income tax is far from new
institution in this country despite the
fact that the income tax amendment
Is now before the states. The repuD
lie had barely been set in motion by
the fathers when the question OF oil
rect taxes began TO cause trouble
Various tax laws imposed by congress
we're objected to on the ground tha'
they violated the rule OF apportlon
ment. The first of these was the IA
nous carriage-tax law, enacted IN
1894. That statute levied TAX OIL
varying amounts on carriages, then
looked on as the vehicles of the .1ch
lanes Madison was then member OIL
the house. He had been a prominent
member Of the convention that framed
the constitution. He opposed TIE tax
denounced IL as unconstitutional
fought IL in congress and carried the
war into the newspapers. George
Washington approved the tax and SO
did Alexander Hamilton, who was sec
retary OF the treasury when the law
was passed. The government collect
ed the tax against the protest of .
citizen of Virginia, and on an agreed
statement of fact, the controversy
went TO the supreme court. DISCUS,
sion was stirred in both houses OF
congress and throughout the country
and when the case was argued before
the supreme court. intense excitement
was aroused. John Marshall, after
wards chief Justice. but not on the
bench then, took part in the argu
ment. The court decided that a taE
ON carriages was not a direct tax, anu
therefore that the law which imposed
il and did not apportion IL among the
states was constitutional.
This case was known as the Hyiton
case and from then on, for a hundred
years. through various controversies
the courts sustained laws OF congress
which we're objected TO as imposing
direct taxes and not apportioning
them. Numerous laws were passed
and enforced carrying taxes on In
comes without apportionment. A great
part of the money to carry on the
civil war was derived from income
taxes. In 1880, the supreme court
sustained an unapportloned tax on In
comes in the famous Springer case,
This was brought by William NJ
Springer OF Illinois, then a representa-.
tive i'm the house, and a. lawyer OF
prominence. Mr. Springer refused TO
nav the income tax assessed against
him lie declared the law was void.
The government of the United
States levied on his homestead In
springfield, Illinois. sold 1t, purchased
Il at execution sale. and brought &C
ton of ejectment against him. The
case went to the supreme court on