Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/235

207 POLLOCK ^, FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY. 207 asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation. No one answered.' " Furthermore, it most definitely appears that no one then knew what the term " direct taxes " actually meant. No two of the members of the Constitutional Convention and statesmen of that time gave the words the same interpretation. And it can confidently be affirmed, with all deference, that no one has ever known or does now know with certainty all that the term implies. The Supreme Court of the United States on May 20, 1895, stood divided upon the question five to four.^ But the question is deeper than this, and cannot be thus cava- lierly disposed of. It seems to me that nothing is gained by the elaborate and exhaustive researches which have been made into the debates and writings in regard to the clauses relating to taxation in the Con- stitution.2 These researches have only proved that some men held one opinion in regard to the meaning of "direct taxes, " and some another, and that some changed their opinion. It is not of very great importance that James Madison believed that the Car- riage Tax Act of 1794 was unconstitutional, and that later, when President of the United States, he signed bills passed by Congress which provided for the exaction of the same kind of taxes.^ But, if it be important, as the majority of the Supreme Court seem to think, the facts as to Mr. Madison's opinion and change of opinion certainly strengthen the argument for the constitutionality of the income tax. It is a man's final opinion that is of the greatest weight, as it is a court's, especially when the man and the court have overruled their former judgments. Every one knows, who knows anything at all about our constir tutional history and constitutional law, the facts and considerations and conditions which led to the framing and adoption of our Con- stitution. It would be idle to reiterate them here. In the light of those circumstances the Constitution is to be construed, and in the light of those alone. All the arguments and citations were before the Supreme Court of the United States in Springer v. United States,* which were presented to it in the case under dis- cussion,^ but did not appear to be of any great weight to the then members of the Court. Indeed, it is submitted, with the greatest deference, that the weight given to Madison's original opinion 1 157 U.S. 559, 562, 563, 565-572; 158 U. S. 620, 622-629; 158 U. S. 649. 2158U.S699. * 102 U. S. 586. 3158 U.S. 649. »i57U. S. 636.