Norwich bulletin., 1916-01-25
Income Tax Law
 is Constitutional
UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE
 SUPREME COURT
GOVT. HAS FREE REIN
Decision Win Give Impetus to Pro- posaIs Now Before Congress, One of Which Calls for a 50 Per Cent. Tax on Incomes More Than s1,ooo, 1000.

VII hhSOthSS NtOhC YtgOV0yONOs
 Washington, Jan. 24. = The income tax was declared constitutional today by the supreme court in an unanimous decision which swept aside every con tention raised against it and, in the opinion of congressional leaders, open ed the way for increasing the tax rate on great fortunes to help pay for na- tional defense.
 Proposals Pending In Congress.
 Proposals are pending in congress to tax incomes of more than $1,0O0, 600 as high as 50 per cent Leaders on all sides agree that out of the impetus which the decision today will give such proposals is likely to come a definite movement to levy on the reve- nues from great private fortunes for some of the millions the government must raise to carry out the army and navy increases.
 May Yield $1e5, o,ooo Year.
 'The supreme courts decision has absolutely unfettered the income tax as a source of revenue" said Repre- sentative Hull of Tennessee, author of the law. "All doubt is removed and congress is left much freer to act. believe congress will take advantage of the opportunity to amend the law ma terially. Without any unusual or un- just charges it can be made to yield $1S5,000,000 to $195, 100000 a year as against $s5.OO0,0OO or s90,0O0.0o0 as present"
 Representative Hull is preparing amendments to carry the tax to in- comes below $3,000 and make graded increases in the surtaxes on incomes exceeding $20,000 a year.
 So far the problem of raising the revenue for national defense, although approached from many angles, has not been carried toward any definite solu- tion, because with the constitutionality of the income tax undecided, admins tration leaders were reluctant to place too much dependence on it.
 Broadest Interpretation Possible.
 In its decision the supreme court construed for the first time the six teenth amendment to the constitution, under which the tax is levied, and gave it the broadest interpretation pos sible, rejecting suggestions to confine its scope to narrow limits.
 Decision rAnnouncsd by Chief rJustice White.
 The decision was announced by Chief Justice White. It was rendered in the appeal of Frank R. Brushaber from the action of the New York federal ern Pacific, of which Brushaber was a stockholder, from paying the tax. The case raised substantially every point involved in all the five income tax cases before the court, with the excep- tion of the effect of the provision al- 5 per cent. deduction annually from gross income for depletion of mines This provision is regarded as being an amendment to the old corporation tax rather than a feature of the income tax.
 18th Amendment Holds Good. The basic error of those who attack ed the constitutionality of the tax | Chief Justice White held, was in re- gard to the sixteenth amendment as empowering the United States to lew a direct tax without apportionmen among the states according to popula- | tion. In substance, the court held tha 1 the sixteenth amendment had not em. powered the federal government tC | levy a new tax, but that the whole purpose of the amendment was to re. lieve all income taxes from a consid- eration of the source whence the in. | come was derived"
 Those opposing the tax had urged that the sixteenth amendment provid | ed that income from whatever source | derived" should be taxed without re- gard to apportionment among the | states. They argued that the Under. Wood-SimmS tax provision by reason l of exemption of certain incomes iron taxation had not come within tht meaning of the amendment. Power to Levy Never Questioned. Chief Justice White said the power | of the federal government to levy ar | income tax had never been questioned l Quoting at length from the famous in. come tax decisions of 1895, he declared l the court then recognized the fact tha taxation on income was in the nature | of an excise entitled to be enforced aG such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to ac. | complaining the result which the re quirement as to apportionment of di 1 rect taxation was adopted to prevent in which case the duty would arise tt disregard the form and consideration | of the substance alone, and hence sub | ject the tax to the regulation as to ap l portionment which otherwise as al excise would not apply to it.'' The court then decided, he added | that the effect of the tax on incom, | from real estate was the same as if ; | direct tax had been levied on the req estate and that it was with a view O l obviating such questions that tn
 amendment had been adopted. | No Limitations Embraced. Inasmuch as the amendment had no | conferred the power to levy an in
 come tax, said the chief justice, i could not be interpreted as embracinl | limitations as to the nature and char acter of income to be taxed. To con slider it as embracing limitations, sucl
 as not authorizing a progressive tax he held, was irreconciliable with tn purpose of the amendment. He ex plained, too, that the uniformity O excise taxes required by the constitu ton was geographical uniformity an not uniformity of application as t classes.
 Taxation on Incomes.
 The chief justice further held tha the tax did not violate the ''du process" provision of the constitutio,
 by imposing higher rate of taxatiol on incomes above $20, GOO than on thos
 below that figure or by other pro
 visions.
 Copper Miners Strike Settled.