El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-01-07
IS RATIFIED
BY Nine
STATES
Should Twelve Vote Against
Amendment It's Defeat
Would Be Encompassed.
THIS YEAR WILL
SETTLE ITS FATE


Washington, D. G. Jan. THE in
come tax amendment TO the federal
constitution will be considered by a
large number Of the legislatures whose
sessions open this month About three
faurths of the legislatures will meet
IN 1911. Most OF them viii have the
income tax amendment before them
and it is quite likely its fate viii be
decided before the year is passed.
Nine states have already ratified the
amendment They are Alabama, South
Carolina, Illinois, Maryland, Ken
ttpeky. Mississippi, Oklahoma, Georgia
and Texas. Five states have voted on
il and failed TO ratify. They are
New York. Rhode Island, Massachus-
etts, Virginia and Louisiana
Twelve May Defeat 1t.
Since ratification by the legisla-
lures. Of three-fourths Of the states is
necessary before the amendment be-
comes part of the constitution, II
states can defeat il. It is expected
the measure viii be reconsidered by
nearly all the states that have hith-
erto rejected il. and that a part Of
them will yet ratify il. In. a recent
statement, senator Norris Brown OF
Nebraska. author Of the amendment.
predicted four of the five states that
had rejected It would eventually rati-
fy il
What is known as the income tax
amendment is the proposed 18th amend
ment bodied in a resolution passed In
the special session OF the 61st con-
gress in 1909. The language is as
follows: The congress shall have
power to lay and. collect taxes on in
comes. from whatever source derived
without apportioument among the sew
%
any census or enumeration" This is
but single sentence, but if 1t is ad-
ded 10 the constitution Il may have
profound effect on the course Of tax
alton in this country.
Is Considered Necessary.
The necessity for the proposed
amendment, providing the country is
to have an income tax, arises from
the supreme court decision in the IA
that the income tax provided for by
congress in 1884 was unconstitutional
because it was a direct tax and yet
was not apportioned among the sew
eral states according 10 their popula
ton as is expressly provided by the
constitution as ii now stands. In view
Of the decision in the Pollock case if
congress is to have power TO levy a
tax on incomes, one Of two things
LdpDCll EltuEI lie S4E1 C14lC
court must be induced to reverse it
self, or the constitution must De
amended
In the first extra session of the
sixty-first congress, which began
March Is, 1893, the most extended
consideration was given to the income
tax question A powerful element
IN the senate and the house favored
the revival of income tax legislation
-
to put up to the supreme court once
more the question whether an income
tax could be levied without apportion-
ing it among the states. In the senate,
an extremely brilliant and able de-
bate was aroused. Senator Joseph
W. Bailey Of Texas. for the democrats,
and senator Albert 3. Cummins Of
Iowa, for the insurgent republicans
led the fight to have an income tax
Amendment 10 the tariff bill adopted
The effort was not successful but
the indirect effect Of the contest was
to bring about the adoption in both
houses Of a resolution for the submits
sion to the states OF an income tax
amendment, and also to cause enact
ment Of the present corporation tax
law.
Not a New institution.
The income tax is far from a new
institution in this country despite the
fact that the income tax amendment is
row before the states. The republic
kad barely been set in motion by the
fathers when the question of direct
taxes began to cause trouble. Various
tax laws imposed by congress were
objected TO on the ground that they
Violated the rule Of apportfonment
The first OF these was the famous car
rage tax law, enacted in 1874. That
statute levied a tax of varying amounts
on carriages, then looked on as the
vehicles of the rich. James Madison
was then a member of the house He
had been prominent member of the
convention that framed the constitu-
tion- He opposed the tax, denounced
it as unconstitutional fought it in
congress and carried the war into the
newspapers. George Washington ap-
proved the tax and so did Alexander
Hamilton. who was secretary of the
treasury when the law was passed The
government collected the tax against
the protest OF a citizen of Virginia and
On az agreed statement of fact the con-
troversy went to the supreme court
was stirred in both houses
OF congress and throughout the coun-
try. and when the case was argued be-
fore the supreme court intense excite
ment was aroused John Marshall. af-
terward chief justice. but not on the
bench then, took part in the argument.
The court decided that a tax on car
riages was not a direct tax, and there
fore that the law which imposed II and
did not apportion it among the states
was constitutional
The case was known as the Hylton
case and from then on, for 100 years,
through various controversies, the
courts sustained laws Of congress
which were objected TO as imposing
direct taxes and not apportioning them !
Numerous laws were passed and en-
forced carrying taxes on incomes with