Evening journal., 1919-10-18
INCOME TAX
LAW IS VALID
continued from First page.

After setting forth the grounds on
which counsel for Pinder attacked the
consliiutionalily OF The law. Chief
Justice Pennewill continued the opinion
Of the court a. follows:
"The defendant contends uat the
Legislature had no authority 60 enact
a statute providing for am income tax,
because. under said Section I Of Article
Of the Constitution, nothing but
property" can De the subject Of taxa
tion, and income is not property. lie
insists that while said Section. for the
purpose Of taxation. refers TO class. OF
subjects which is general, and not
specifically exclusive Of Income. never
iheless the Use Of the word property
in the exemption clause makes II clear
that nothing can be taxed that Is not
property. The defendant admits that
it is competent for the Legislature to
EXEMPT from taxation such property as
will in IFS Judgment best promote the
public welfare. provided the exemption
Is reasonable and not arbitrary, but IN
sists that income Is not property and'
theNfore. not subject TO exemption.
In support Of his contention That the
income Of the citizen is not property
for purposes Of taxation, the defendant
has cited the following authorities
Savannah V. Hartridge. Ga. % (;
Warlng v. savannah. 60 Ga. %; Dyer
u. Melrose. 80 y. +. 9 Mass; Wilcox
v. County Commissioners, tO3 Mass.
J5i: Glasgow Y. Rowse, i3 Mo. d'9;
state y. Frear, IS Wis. i56; Black on
Income &c. 10.
Probably no other cases can be found
that can be regarded as supporting IN
the slightest degree the defendant
contention. and upon examination II
appears that the eases cited are not
really i'm point. The Georgia cases
furnish the basis for the text OF Mr..
Black. and Savannah v. Hartride is the
defendants leading authority. in that
case was involved the validity OF city
ordinance which imposed a tax on IN
comes. and the question raised was not
the power of the state 10 tax Incomes.
but whether such tax was authorized
by any OF the three acts granting to
council the power 10 tax. The Court.
in denying the authority, said: This
may be thought close construction oi
The charter but when we recOllect that
in the construction OF statutes made m
favor Of corporations or particular per-
sons. and in der0gation OF common
right. care should be taken not TO eX-
tend them beyond their express words,
or their clear import The Court also
said i'm that case And the point
10 be decided is not whether income
may not. possibly, be comprehended
under the general name OF properly /.
but whether such Is its meaning ana
such was the design Of the legislature,
i'm this Act?" In Waring V. savannah,
the court said: 50 that perhaps the
True question Is this Is income prop
erly in the sense Of the constitution, ana
must T. be taxed at the same rate as
other property This case II similar
I'm principle 10 glasgow y. ROWse. in
which 10 was held that income tax did
not come within the meaning or the
term property as used and designated
in The constitution" Necessarily Il was
50 held. because the constitution re-
mircd that taxation on property should
be i'm proportion 10 It's value. and tax
on income would be IA violation or the
ad valorem principle. The tax could
not. therefore be sustained If income
was property within the meaning ~ the
We are unable TO sec that
the cnss Of Dyer y. Melr0se has any ap-
plicatiOn 10 the present one, and IN VIII
COX v. County commissioners, the ques-
iion was the distinction TO be drawn
between incomes derived from business
which was taxable under the law and
income derived from property subject
q nnsfafaIt HWannf from
fax Tile Wisconsin Constitution pro-
yidcs that "Nxes" shall De levied on
such property as the Legislature shall
prescribe. and may be imposed on in
comes. privileges and occupations The
court. in state Y. Frear, very properly
said: "The people have said that prop
crly means one thing and income means
another, in other words. that income
taxation Is not property taxation as
The words are used in the Constitution
Of Wisconsin
Tile provision OF our constitution. reN
speeding taxation = not grant OF
power. The legislature is not restrained
i'm the selection Of the Subjects OF tax
alton. We have 10 such provision a.
that taxes shall be uniform on an
property or species Of property taxed, ="
or that upon property shall be in pro-
portion 90 is value or al valOrem
I'm The absence OF any authority on the
subject. this court would unhesilaiingly
hold that income is property within the
Of Section 4, Article 5. OF our
Constitution, CGd. therefore. subject to
taxation or exemption. Shall we hold
because the court in a Georgia
ease. decided in 1850. declared that in
come was not property within the
meaning Of the taxation laws Of that
state then before the court? We think
ihe distinction drawn by the Georgia
court was very technical, II not il
logical. because il income is property
for other purposes, why should Il not
DE for the purpose Of taxation? u is
the subject Of larceny because &c is
properly, and i'm these times. Is uni
Versally considered property when re-
ceived by the person entitled to 10.
But lt is possible TO uphold the tax
assessed against the defendant upon a
somewhat different ground. Mr. Cooley,
in his work on taxation '3rd Ed 1872
says; THE power Of taxation Is an in
cident OF sovereignty, and Is possessed
10y the legislature without being eX-
pressly conferred by the people. IL is a
legislative power y. Everything TO
whicn The legislative power extends
may be The subject OF taxation y.
Nothing but express constitutional limi-
tatiOn upon legislative authority can
exclude anything TO which the author
ily extends from the grasp Of the lax
ing power. II the legislature in its dis
cretion shall at any time select IL for
revenue purposes And in Judson on
taxation End Ed Section i96 ,5i4l, II
is said: The legislative power OF
tf... t- f,ha~o,f ,pl fh, gfaf, 4 -,