El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-01-07

out apportionment. A great part OF
the money to carry on the civil war
vas derived from income taxes In
1880, the supreme court sustained an
unapportioned tax on incomes in the
famous Springer case. This was
brought by William NJ Springer of I'LL
rois, then a representative in the house
and a lawyer of prominence Mr..
Springer refused ito, pay the income tax
assessed against him. He declared the
law was void.
Sprfnger's Fight.
The government of the United States
levied on his homestead in Springfield,
Illinois, sold it, purchased il at execu-
tion sale and brought action of eject
ment against him. The case went to
the supreme court on the action Of
ejectment Springer filed with the su-
prene court q most elaborate brief,
prepared by himself. and said by emf
nent lawyers to be exhaustive of the
learning. on the subject But the court
held the income tax law was valid on
the theory that direct taxes in the
meaning Of the constitution included
only capitation or head taxes and tax
es on real estate. The tax on Spring
er's income was held to be In the ma
ture of an excise and legal.
But in 1895. an income tax law,
which had been included in the Wilson
tariff act Of 1894. was brought before
the supreme court in the case Of Pol
lcck VS.. the Farmers Loan and Trust
company and in that case the law was
held unconstitutional and void Two
hearings were had. On the first hear
ing, a majority Of the court held that a
tax on income derived from real es-
tate must be apportioned as a direct
tax. but the judges divided equally.
four to four, on the question whether a
tax on income derived from personal
property must be apportioned On the
second hearing, by five to four, the
court held that a tax on income deriv-
ed from personal property must be con-
sidered direct tax and must be appor-
toned ALI the Judges agreed, howev-
er, that taxes on incomes derived from
business or occupations need not be
apportiened-
Aroused Intense Inferest.
Among lawyers and laymen there
was the most intense interest in the
Pollock case and it has been widely dis
cussed in congress and out of it ever
since. Some one Of the justices chang
ed his mind between the first and sec
ond decision. Who that justice was is
more or less in dispute It is one Of the
which may never be divu1ged One OF
the dissenting opinions in the first case
Tas by justice White, who is now chief
justice, Justice Harlan, who is still on
the bench. concurred in the dissent Of
justice White and edded- a statement
OF his own. The effect Of the Pollock
case decision was to make It practi-
cally impossible for the government to
collect a tax on incomes.
It is urged by those who favor the
iT.come tax that without power to levy
It congress might be left helpless in
war or any great national emergency.
They point out that adoption Of the
PENDING amendment would not impose
the tax. Legislation by congress, fol-
lowing ratification, would be necessary
for that. Among the arguments for the
tax itself, is the one that taxes on con-
sumption, such as tariff or revenue
taxes, are not paid in proportion to
what one owns, but in proportion TO
" hat he uses or consumes, and hence
are unjust. It is also urged that the
income tax is necessary to check the
growth of vast fortunes and bring
about more equal distribution On the
other hand, some who oppose the tax
maintain that it would put undue bur
dens on the Weather parts of the
country Others see in it. menace to
the system of protection. It has also
been urged that the levying Of an in
come tax under the amendment pro-
posed would enable the national gov
eminent to tax incomes derived from
bonds issued by the states or under
the authority of the states, and would
place the borrowing capacity of the
state at the mercy of the federal tax
lrg power This argument &Eas ad-
vanced by Charles E. Hughes, now as
sociate Justice OF the supreme court.
y hen governor of New York. It was
by senator Elihu Root of
New York
Among the nations of Europe, the ex-
CONTINUED on Next Page.)