Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/371

 Review of Periodicals to lean more and more heavily each year upon the weakening arm of state and public charity." “A Statutory Relation Between lnsurable and Taxable Values." By Jennings C. Wise. 15 Virginia Law Register 914 (Apr). “Either the assessors tly underestimate the value of property, ereby depriving the government of the ' t compensation for the individual beneﬁts 1t dispenses to its citizens,

or the insurance companies insure property, contrary to the law and their own interests, at excessive valuations. . . . “Suppose the law of our state prescribed that no insurance company nor individual could insure property for more than 125 per cent of its assessed valuation on the tax books of the preceding year, with a suitable penalty provided for a violation of the law, what would be the eﬂect?" Taxation (Federal Corporation Tax). "Is the Federal Corporation Tax Law Constitu tional?" By Walter K. Tuller, of the Cali fornia bar.

North American Review, v. 191,

p. 537 (Apr.). “The tax imposed by this Act. . . cannot be shifted. If that be the test, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that this is not an excise, but a direct tax. . . . "The right to act or do business in the form of a corporation, ordinarily termed the cor rate franchise, is property. The tax, there ore, is in reality a tax upon property, which seems to conﬁrm the conclusion heretofore reached that it is a direct tax. . . . “It is submitted that it is not within the wer of the federal Government, under the nstitution, to tax any corporate franchise granted by the state within the scope of its reserved powers; and it has been shown that this is exactly what the Act in question, if operative, would do. . . . "The principles sought to be established are :— "1.

That although called an excise, the

tax imposed by the Act under consideration is, in reality, simply a tax upon the corporate franchise and as such a 'rect tax. That not being apportioned among the several states according to population, it is therefore unconstitutional. "2. That in so far as it attempts to im se a tax upon corporate franchises grante by the several states in the exercise of their constitutionally ‘reserved’ powers, it is uncon stitutional also on the separate and distinct ground that it is beyond the powers granted to the Federal Government and an invasion of those reserved to the states, and "3. That if held not to be a tax upon the corporate franchise, it is simply a tax on the property held by corporations, and therefore unconstitutional under the principle declared in the Income Tax case, supra." Taxation (Proposed Income Tax Amend ment). “The Income Tax Amendment." By

349

Dwight W. Morrow. 10 Columbia Law Review

379 (May). American constitutional history has re cerved a somewhat noteworthy contribution II] this long and erudite paper, which contains a close anal sis of the treatment accorded matters of ederal taxation from the very beginning, oing back as far as the adoption of the Arti es of Confederation. "Senator Borah of Idaho, in a s

ch in

the Senate on May 4, 1909," said: " ' believe that the fathers, when the history of the sur roundin circumstances is clearly studied, will be ound to have known and understood precisely the deﬁnition of the hrase ‘direct taxes,’ and that especially w d the careful makers of that t instrument have re frained from putting into the Constitution a phrase which was ambiguous after their atten tion had been called to the fact that it was ambi us.’ “T 's does credit to Senator Borah's rever ence for the fathers, but it is not history. It ignores the fact that the Convention from which this Constitution was evolved was one long battle, a battle in which men's passions had run high, a battle in which more than the ultimatum had been given. . . . It is to detract from the ability and character of the framers of the Constitution to assume that they were satisﬁed with their work. To their lasting credit it should always be remembered that they took not what they wanted, but what they could get. "Rufus King's question was not answered because no man in the Convention was able to answer it. He asked for a ‘precise’ deﬁni tion of ‘direct taxation.’ As a matter of’ fact no man has yet satisfactorily answered that question." Mr. Morrow, em hasizing the confusion in the meaning of t e words “direct taxes," goes on to show how the Supreme Court progressed toward that practical settlement of the sense of the phrase which Hamilton had hoped might come about by a “spicies of arbitration.’ Thus in Springer v. . S. (1880), (102 U. S. 586) it was held that“direct taxes" signiﬁed capitation taxes and taxes on real estate. "This was the situation when the income tax ovision of the Wilson Tariff Law came before the Supreme Court in 1894 in the Pollock case, above referred to. If there were ever a difﬁcult task set before lawyers it was the task set before the able counsel who attempted to show that this income tax was a ‘direct tax}. They must begin again the search which Hamilton, one hun dred years before, had said would be a vain search. . . . Every possible explanation bear in upon the economic deﬁnition was brought be ore the court. The majority of the court was ded. The uncommonly practical question of taxation was turned over to the economists. . . . “With the above history in mind, what of the posed Sixteenth Amendment? Gov ernor ughes sees in the words ‘from what