The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-06-22
CLARIFICATION
OF TAX RIGHT
STATE Bull WARK
Threat of Wider Federal
Rule Over Commerce Seen
Blow to Regional Autonom
BY SCOVILLE HAMLIN


NEW YORK, June 22.-President
Roosevelt has brought to life an
issue supposedly dead. He favors
a breakdown of states rights" prin-
ciples in commerce. This might be
accomplished through a constitu-
tional amendment that would trans
fer to the Federal government many
powers over social and economic
measures now reserved to the states.
State lines already have been
broken down in many cases be-,
yond recognition. If further sur
render of state sovereignty would
involve unification and the COM
pounding of the American people
into one common mass. the sooner
we see eye to eye the better.
State Lines Broken
The breaking down of the lines
which separate the states and the
Federal government, in large meas
ure, is an accomplished fact. The
field Of direct taxation, where the
states and the Federal government
have been brought into open conflict.
is a case in point.
An exclusive right to tax the in
come of citizens of individual states
was granted to the Federal govern
ment by the Sixteenth or Income
Tax Amendment to the Con-
stitution. In the absence of any
constitutional limitation upon the
exercise of this power the right is
exclusive. While there are twenty
three states and territories with in
come tax laws of their own the right
of both governments is unrestrained
by constitutional limitations.
The right of direct taxation can
be carried by both governments to
the point of confscation and de-
struction of the source of income.
This struggle for absolute power in
! the field of direct taxation
threatens to destroy the Union.
Direct Taxation Denied
When Congress was empowered to
lay and collect taxes from whatever
source derived, without apportion-
ment among the several states and
without regard to any census or
enumeration, the states were de-
prived of their cO-equaI access to
the field of direct taxation. They
were deprived of their sovereign
right to participate in determining
the amount of taxes levied by the
Federal government and their dis
tribution. They were deprived of a
large measure of their representa-
ton in the Congress of the United
States.
The original apportionment ruling
in the Constitution required all di-
rect taxes to be apportioned between
the states in accordance with the
distribution of wealth and popula-
ton. This rule was designed to Sc
cure the accumulated property
within the states against the vote
of mere numbers, against the fixing
of exemptions by any group in such
a way as to exclude their own men,
berS from sharing the taxes which
they helped to impose.
Rule Obsolete
With the passing of time, the rule
for apportioning direct taxes became
unavoidable. One state might be
three times as wealthy as another
state and have the same popula-
ton The distribution of the tax
burden on any such basis was UNI
fair. During the Constitutional
Convention it was suggested by
King that if such disparity in the
rule developed that the rule itself
be changed.
Instead of adjusting the rule to
machine economy. instead of &C
counting for the change in proper
ton between wealth and population.
the rule itself was eliminated from
the Constitution. State lines were
broken down. The states were de-
prived Of a large measure of their
sovereignty without their consent.
Clearly the states are confronted
with the alternative of making the
Sixteenth Amendment constitutions
al by unanimously agreeing to the
Capitalization of taxing powers in
Washington, or requiring the taxing
powers of the two governments to
be brought under constitutional
control
Until the states are made secure
in their concurrent right to tax IN
come they can exist only at the
mercy Of the national government.
The Sixteenth Amendment, through
its grant of unlimited taxing power
to the Federal government has de-
stroyed the security of the state
governments and their subdivisions.