Evening star., 1939-03-29


For the new power to tax means
that the employees of the various
State political machines will be
subject to drain, and it is not their
numerical position but their in
fluence which will count. What will
happen also when States start tax
ing Army and Navy officers who may
be stationed for a year or more in
their jurisdiction? And what of
some of the low-paid school teach
ers in several States who hitherto
have been exempt from Federal
taxes?
The problems that will arise when
Legislatures and the Federal Gov
ernment get busy on the taxing
power will inevitably affect political
trends. Thus there have been added
by the judicial decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States
this very week millions of persons
to the ranks of those who want to
see a program adopted which viii
balance the budget some day and
curtail expenses.
State Rolls Double U. S.
II the military establishment is
included. the total Federal employees
rolls amount to above 100000 per-
sons, and the State and local en-
ployes combined run about 2,506,000
more. Here, therefore. is a Slzable
total of families about to be sub
jected to taxation not felt hereto
fore. This comes at a time when
the country is seriously concerned
about fiscal policy and when a ma
tional election is in the offing. The
chances are the party out of power
will benefit by whatever resentment
the new tax policies may bring. That
is one reason why Legislatures and
Congress may go slow about applying
the new taxing power too abruptly
or too extensively.
There can be no doubt that the
Democratic administration here
looked with favor on the agitation
for the abandonment of the system
in vogue heretofore whereby recipro-
cal immunity from taxation was
enjoyed. 1t would appear from a
reading of the Supreme Court
opinion that the immunity of the
last 100 years was but technical
matter and that all these years the
Constitution really did not exclude
Federal and State employees from
being taxed by State and Federal
governments, respectively. Such a
sensational change moves Justice
Frankfurter to submit a separate
opinion, while concurring in the g.
to- vote of the court, takes cog
nizance of the surprise which the
public may feel at this outstanding
instance of reversal.
Mr.. Frankfurters comment is sig
nificant and one paragraph in par
ticular will come back in the future
as a sort of challenge of inquiry
whenever the Supreme Court with
its preponderance of new justices
should reverse apparently deep
rooted precedents and traditions of
American Jurisprudence.
Speaks of Reconstruction.
Speaking of the old-time custom
of explaining important decisions
with individual opinions, Justice
Frankfurter says in his concurring
opinion in the tax case that this
tradition still has relevance when
an important shift in constitutional
doctrine is announced after a re-
construction in the membership of
the court"
1t may be that the justice did not
intend to give any unusual meaning
to the word reconstruction" for
normally as vacancies are filled on
account of death or resignation or
retirement, there is no occasion to
refer to the membership as having
been particularly reconstructed.
Assuming, however, that the public
recognizes that the Supreme Court
has been reconstructed by President
Roosevelt, it is interesting to note
Mr.. Fnnkfurter's further comment
which may prove very significant in
the future He adds:
"Such shifts of opinion should
not derive from mere private judg-
ment. They must be duly mindful
of the necessary demands of con-
tinuity in civilized society. A re-
versal of long current of decisions
can be justified only if rooted in
the Constitution itself as an his
toric document designed for de-
veloping Nation"
The foregoing may, indeed, be a
warning that if, as has been believed
the Supreme Court is composed OF
men whose views run along with
Mr.. Roosevelt's, this does not mean
the new justices should substitute
their private judgments for those
established precedents and consti-