Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-10-17

which was not included in the
municipal corporations Of Washing
ton, Georgetown and Alexandra they
were taxed by what were suostan-
TALLY county commissions composed
of justices of the peace appointed by
the President.
"2. That from 1871 till 1874 they
| were taxed by a local legislature, one
/ branch of which was elected by them
and the other appointed by the Presl-
dent.
20. That from 1874 till 1878 Con-
greSS had under consideration various
of government for the District. and
that meanwhile Congress regulated
! taxation in the District.
II. That from 1873 till the current
fiscal year one-half of the expenses
of the District government were re-
OF the District produced by laws
enacted by Congress and the other
| one-half by the United States.
Thus till 1874 the people of the
District were fully pre- tected in their
right to be represented in the body
that taxed them: during the next four
years they were in the position OF one
of the territories. waiting for Con-
gress to decide on their form of gov
eminent; and from that time till the
legislation referred to in the closing
paragraphs of our original brief they
have been amply protected from ex-
cessive or unfair taxation by the fact
that for every dollar taken from them
in taxes the United States was requir-
ct to appropriate IA dollar from its
taxation clauses of the Constitution,
Chief Justice Marshall In Lough-
borough VS.. Blake. 5sWJ,.. 3i7, said:
If 1t be said that the principle Of
uniformity, established in the Consti-
tuition. secures the District from OPP
preston in the imposition Of direct
taxes, it is no less true that the prin-
ciple of apportionrncnt. also cstab-
iished in the Constitution. secures the
District from any oppressive exercise
OF the power to lay and collect direct
taxes
"Acquiescence in such taxation un-
der these circumstances. it is sub
mitted, cannot be considered as bind
ing them to continue to submit when
the protection afforded them by the
act of 1878 is Withdrawn. That would
be as illogical as to hold that they
jury because for seventeen years they
did not complain that their rights in
that regard were disregarded in the
organization of the Police Court.
Court Rulings Reviewed.
"As to the decisions of this court
and the courts of the District Of Co
of Congress in the District:
In Loughborough VS.. Blake, 8
Wheaton. a11, it was held that an act
of Congress was valid which includ-
ed the District of Columbia in the
levying of d direct tax under the pro-
visions of sections and 9 of article
I, of the Constitution. Chief Justice
Marshall in delivering the opilion
of the court said it was admitted tia.
| in legislating in its capacity as To-
cal Legislature Congress had the
power of levying direct taxes.
This of course was not Il decision
of the Cour;-eSpncially as at that
very time as we have seen the people
of the District were taxing them
selves. 1t is believed that up to that
time Congress had not attempted to
tax the District otherwise than
through it's municipal corporation in
! the towns or through it's justices of
the peace IN the counties.
However, in Gibbons VS.. DistriCt
of Columbia. 116 U. s., 404, there was
! involved the validity of a tax sale OF
! land in Washington. which it was
claimed was exempt as church prop
erty.It was claimed by the land own
er that the act of Congress imposing
the tax was void because it taxed
property outside of the cities of
Washington and Georgetown used
solely for agricultural PURPOSES at
a lower rate than it taxed other prop
erty. Mr.. Justice Gray in delivering
| the opinion of the court said that
this contention was founded on a
! misunderstanding of the case OF
Loughborough VS.. Blake and added
| (page 407):
1.-The point there decided was that
an act of Congress, laying direct
; tax throughout the United States in
proportion to the census directed to
be taken by the Constitution, might
comprehend the District Of Columbia
and the power of Congress. legislat-
ing as local legislature for the Dis
trict. to levy taxes for District pur-
poses only, in like manner as the
J legislature of state may tax the
people of state for state purposes,
was expressly admitted, and has
| never since been doubted. Wheat.
Mattingly VS.. District of Columbia,
! 81 U. s.. 6S7. In the exercise of this
| power, Congress. like any state legis-
! lature unrestricted by constitutional
| provisions may at it's discretion
! wholly exempt certain classes OF
property: from taxation. or may tax
them at a lower rate than other
| property
+! ..Of the two cases here cited by Mr.
fJusticet Gray. one, WEIGH vs. Cook
merely held that an act Of the Dis
trict legislature exempting from tax
alton for ten years property used fol
manufacturing purposes was as to tn,
| exemption repealed by a subsequent
act of Congress. which levied a ia,
on real estate with certain exceptions
not including real estate used in man
fractures The other case, Mattingl,
Tvs. District of Columbia, upheld tn
power of Congress to confirm certain
sewer improvement. But MIRA justice
! Strong; in delivering the opinion O.
the court, took occasion to say:
Under the Constitution. Congress
had power to exercise exclusive leg
! islation in all cases whatsoever owe
the District. and this includes thu
power of taxation. Cohens VS.. Vir
ginia VIII, 1854
! re- Dintum. Not Decision.
| This, too, was a dictum, not de
| cision. And Cohens VS.. Virginia in
tvolyed only certain questions of tn,
! jurisdiction of the court and the fur
| Their question whether an act of Con
gress giving the corporation of Wash
! ington the privilege of raising none.
| for the expenses of the city govern
ment by selling lottery tickets CAV,
ithe corporation the right to force tn,
sale of such tickets in Virginia, not
| withstanding that Virginia had mad
| the selling of lottery tickets in tina
state a penal offense. There is not /;
+. word in the opinion of the court re
! ferring even indirectly. to taxation il
the District. In Gibbons VS.. Distric
| of Columbia the question submitted t,
| the court and argued was not wheth
er Congress had the power to tax, bu
whether it had the right to discrimi
nate in the rate of taxation between
land used for agricultural purposes
| and other land.
| at is submitted that whether tn,