The Detroit times., 1911-01-10

4
on IL and failed TO ratty. They are
New York, Rhode Island, Massachu-
sets. Virginia and Louisiana
Since ratification By the legisla-
lures OF three-fourths OF the states is
necessary before the amendment be-
comes part of the constitution, ~
states can defeat IL. IL is expected
the measure will be reconsidered by
nearly all the states that have hith-
erto rejected II, and that a part OF
them will yet ratify IL. In a recent
statement, Senator Norris Brown, OF
Nebraska, author of the amendment.
predicted tour OF the Ave states that
had rejected ii would eventually rat
| ify it.
What Is known as the income tax
amendment is the proposed sixteenth
amendment to the constitution EN-
bodied in a resolution passed in the
| special session OF the Sixty-first con-
Sress in 1909. The language is as
| follows: The congress shall have
| power TO lay and collect taxes OH In
comes, from whatever source derived
without apportionment among the
| several states. and without regard to
any census or enumeration. This is
but single sentence. but il 1t is added
TO the constitution, il may have pro-
| found effect on the course OF taxation
In this country.
The necessity for the proposed
amendment. providing the country is
| to have all 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 1924 was uneonstitu-
tional because IL was a direct tax and
yet was not opportioned among the
several states according to their pop
| ulation as is expressly provided by the
| constitution as il now stands. In view
| of the decision in the Pollock case, II
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 it.
self, or the constitution must be
amended
In the first or extra session Of the
Sixty-first congress, which began
March 10. 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 II 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
Cummins, of Iowa, for the insurgent
Republicans, led the fight TO have an
; income tax amendment to the tarifi
bill adopted. The effort was not sue
cessful but the indirect effect OF the
contest was to bring about the adop
ton in both houses OF a resolution for
, the submission to the states of an in
, come tax amendment, and also q
cause enactment OF the present cor
poration tax law.
The income tax Is far from a new
institution in this country despite the
fact that the income tax amendment
is now before the states. The repub
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
were objected to on the ground that
they violated the rule of apportion
, ment. The first of these was the Ia
nous carriage-tax law, enacted In
LIZA. 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 a prominent
member OF the convention that framed
Il "a
denounced IL as unconstitutional
fought it in congress and carried the
war into the newspapers. George
Washington approved the tax and SO
did Alexander Hamilton, who was sec
rotary 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 oil
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 tax
on carriages was not "a direct tax, anu
therefore that the law which imposed
IL and did not apportion II among the
states was constitutional
This case was known as the Hylton
case and from then on, for hundred
years. through various controversies
the courts sustained laws OF congress
which were objected TO as imposing
direct taxes and not apportionine
them. Numerous laws we're 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 unapportioned tax on In
comes in the famous Springer case
This was brought by William vi
Springer OF Illinois, then representa-
tive in the house, and lawyer OF
prominence Mr. Springer refused 10
nav the income tax assessed against
aim. He declared the law was void
II The government of the United
States levied on his homestead In
springfield. Illinois, sold II, purchased
a. AZ execution sale. and brought &C
ton of ejectment against him. The
raaa went 10 the supreme court on