Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/234

206 2o6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. With regard to the historical argument in support of the judg- ment of the Court, besides the passages already quoted verbatim and others summarized as indicative of the historical material cited and relied upon by the learned Chief Justice, the following is his own summary of the results of his elaborate historical researches : "From the foregoing it is apparent : i. That the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well under- stood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. 2. That under the State systems of taxation all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes. 3. That the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems. 4. That whether the tax on carriages was direct or indirect was disputed, but the tax was sustained as a tax on the use and an excise. 5. That the original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies, and down to August 15, 1894, this expectation has been realized." ^ In regard to number five of this category of propositions it may be enough to say that it is scarcely an argument. Given the power of Congress to lay and collect a general income tax, no court can stipulate the time when that power shall or can be exercised. That is solely a question of expediency to be solved and determined by Congress alone. Moreover, it is conceived that if Congress has no power to levy certain taxes except in certain ways in ordinary times of peace, it has no power to levy them in other ways in time of war, and so nothing is gained by the fact insisted upon by the learned Chief Justice that all the prior income and direct taxes, which have been levied by Con- gress according to the rule of uniformity, were war measures.^ With number four of the above heads no quarrel can be had. Number three depends solely upon the validity of numbers one and two, and is a corollary to them. If the question were not fundamental, lying at the very root of the whole subject, it would perhaps be enough to cite a sentence from the opinion of the Chief Justice, found ten pages prior to that upon which is contained proposition one, in answer thereto. The Chief Justice writes:^ "Mr. Madison records: 'Mr. King 1 157 U. S. 573. 8 157 U.S. 563. « 157 U. S. 572,573, 533; 158 U.S. 621; 158U. S. 677.