Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-08

eral Constitution will be CONSIDERED Dy u
large number of the legislatures whose
sessions open this month About three
fourths of the legislatures viii meet IN
1911. Most of them will have the income
tax amendment before them, ana II Is
quite likely its fate will be decided De-
fort the year is passed. Nine states nave
already ratified the amendment. They are
Alabama, South Carolina, Illinois, Mary
land. Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma
Georgia and Texas. Five states nave
voted on it and failed to ratify. They are
New York. Rhode Island, Massachusetts
Virginia and Louisiana.
Since ratification by the legislatures OF
three-fourths Of the states Is necessary
before the amendment becomes part OF
the Constitution, twelve states can defeat
it. It is expected the measure Will De re-
considered by nearly all the states tnat
have hitherto rejected it, and that part
OF them will yet ratify it, In recent
statement Senator Norris Brown OF Ne
braska, author of the amendment, pre-
dicted four of the five states that nao
rejected it would eventually ratify 1t.
What is known as the income tax
amendment is the proposed sixteenth
amendment to the Constitution embodied
in a resolution passed in the speciai
session Of the Sixty-first Congress In
1909. The language is as follows: The
Congress shall have power to lay and col
lect taxes on incomes, 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
is added to the Constitution 1t may have
a profound effect on the course Of taxa
tion in this country
The necessity for the proposed amend
ment, providing the country is to have
an income
Why Act Of 1894 tax. arises
Was Declared Invalid. supre e
Court decision in the famous Pollock
case. The court decided that the income
tax provided for by Congress in 1904
was unconstitutional because 1t was a
direct tax and yet was not apportioned
among the several states according to
their population as is expressly provided
by the Constitution as it 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 must
happen: Either the Supreme Court must
stitution must be amended.
In the first or extra session OF the Six
ty-f1rst Congress, which began March Is,
1909, the most extended consideration
was given TO the income tax question. A
powerful element in the Senate and the
legislation. The effect of this would
have been to PUT up to the Supreme Court
once more the question whether an In
come tax could be levied without appor-
tioning 1t among the states In the
Senate, an extremely brilliant and able
Bailey OF Texas, for the democrats, and
Senator Albert B. Cummins of Iowa, for
the insurgent republicans. led the fight
to have an income tax amendment to the
successful. but the indirect effect of the
contest was to bring about the adoption
in both houses OF a resolution for the
submission to the states Of an income tax
amendment, and also to cause enactment
of the present corporation tax law.
The income tax is far from a new insti-
tuition in this country. despite the fact
that the income tax amendment is now
before the states. The republic had
barely been set in motion by the fathers
when the question of direct taxes began
to cause trouble. Various tax laws i'm
posed by Congress were objected to on
the ground that they violated the rule OF
apportionment. The first of these was
1894. That statute levied tax of vary
ing amounts on carriages. then looked on
as the vehicles of the rich. James Madi-
son was then a member of the House. He
had been b prominent member of the
convention that framed the Constitution.
He opposed the tax. denounced it as I'M
constitutional. fought it in Congress and
carried the war into the newspapers.
George Washington approved 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 citizen OF Vir-
ginia, and on an agreed statement OF fact
the controversy went to the Supreme
Court. Discussion was stirred I'm both
houses Of Congress and throughout the
country. and when the case was argued
before the Supreme Court intense excite
ment was aroused. John Marshall, after
ward Chief Justice, but not on the bench
then. took part in the argument. The
court decided that tax on carriages was
not direct tax, and therefore that the
law which imposed 1t and did not appor-
ton 1t among the states was conStttu-
tional