of vesting it in Congress. The support of the national forces, the expense of raising troops, of building and equipping fleets, and all the other expenditures in any wise connected with military and naval plans and operations, are not, however, the only objects to which the jurisdiction of Congress, with respect to revenue, extends. The terms by which the power is conferred embrace a provision for the support of the civil establishments of the United States, the payment of the national debt, and, in general, for all those objects for which "the general welfare" requires the disbursement of money from the national treasury. The necessity of vesting this power in the Federal Government seems to be too obvious to require elucidation. Money is, indeed, the vital principle of the body politic. It is that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. No government, therefore, can be supported without possessing the means within itself, independently of the concurrence of others, of procuring a regular and adequate supply of revenue, so far as the resources at its command will permit. There must, of necessity, then, be interwoven in the texture of every government a power of taxation in some shape or other. In the government of the United States, it is coextensive with the purposes of the Constitution. Congress is accordingly invested with power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare ;" and it has also a distinct power" to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

It was originally urged as an objection to the Constitution, and it is still occasionally contended, that the latter branch of the former of these clauses amounts, in terms, to a commission to exercise every

66

power which may be alleged to be necessary for the general welfare." But this construction was promptly refuted by the authors of "The Federalists:" "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of Congress," say they, "been found in the Constitution, there might have been some colour for this interpretation, though it would then have been difficult to have found a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." It is evident that the expressions in question must be taken in connexion with the preceding branch of the clause, and were intended merely as a specification of the objects for which taxes are to be laid, and not to convey a distinct and independent power to provide for" the general welfare."**

The power of taxation is, moreover, limited, by requiring that "capitation and other direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, as ascertained by the census, and determined by the rule for the apportionment of representatives in Congress." It is qualified, also, by a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be equal throughout the United States ;" and it is farther restricted by a prohibition upon Congress to "lay any tax or duties on articles exported from the United States." The Constitution does not define or select subjects for exclusive taxation by the Federal Government; although, in some instances, an interference must have been foreseen from the exercise of a concurrent power with the states. But it was thought better that a particular state should sustain this inconvenience, than that the national necessities should fail of supply; and it was manifestly intended that Congress should possess full power,

* Federalist, No. 41.

subject to the restrictions and exceptions I have mentioned, over every species of taxable property.

The term "taxes" is general, and was made use of in the Constitution to confer a plenary authority in all cases of taxation to which the powers vested in the Union extend. The most familiar general division of taxes is into direct and indirect; and although the Constitution designates only the former species, it necessarily implies the existence of the latter. The general term, then, includes,

1st. Direct taxes, which are, properly, capitation taxes, and taxes upon land; although a direct tax might be laid on other subjects, such as generally pervade all parts of the Union.

2d. Duties, imposts, and excises; and,

3d. All other taxes of an indirect operation.

A direct tax operates and takes effect independently of consumption or expenditure; while indirect taxes affect expense or consumption; and the revenue arising from them is dependant thereupon. This distinction between the different species of taxes is of practical importance, arising from the different modes in which they are levied; direct taxes being required to be "apportioned among the several states according to the respective numbers of their inhabitants ;" while indirect taxes, not admitting of such apportionment, are directed to be "uniform throughout the United States."

Whether direct or indirect taxation were most consistent with the interests of the country, and the genius of its government, was a point much discussed when the Federal Constitution was under the consideration of the state conventions; and even among those who admitted the necessity of surrendering to the National Government sources of revenue suffi

cient to discharge its debts, and adequate to its sup port, there were some who were jealous of the pow ers conferred on it for those purposes, and wished to reserve all objects of internal taxation to the states, yielding to the United States the power merely of imposing duties on imported articles. But this discrimination, it was urged, would violate that fundamental maxim of good sense and sound policy, which holds that every power should be proportionate to its object; and that the General Government would still be left in such dependance on the several states as would be inconsistent with its proper vigour and efficiency. Commercial imports alone were shown to be unequal to the existing necessities and future exigencies of the Union; and as the latter did not admit of calculation or limitation, it was evident that the power of providing for them ought also to be unconfined, especially as, in the usual course of public affairs, the necessities of a nation, in every stage of its progress, are generally found to be at least equal

to its resources.

Whether the present financial condition of this country may not form an exception in its favour, it would, perhaps, be premature to decide; and as the power in question was, at all events, vested in the Federal Government, the only practical importance of the distinction between direct and indirect taxation, consists in the different modes in which they are respectively to be levied. Direct taxes are required, as we have seen, to be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers, while indirect taxes, not admitting of this apportionment, are to be uniform throughout the United States. Thus, if Congress should think proper to raise a sum of money by direct taxation, the quota of each state must be

fixed according to the census, and in conformity to the rule of apportionment prescribed by the Constitution. If indirect taxation be resorted to, the same duty must be imposed on the article liable to it, whether its quantity or consumption be greater or less in the respective states.

The judicial construction given to the powers of Congress relative to taxation has generally turned on this distinction. By an act passed in 1794, a duty was laid upon carriages for the conveyance of persons; and the question arose whether it were a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution. If it were not a direct tax, it was admitted to be rightly laid; but if it were a direct tax, it was not constitutionally imposed; because, in that case, it should have been laid according to the representative numbers of the several states. The Circuit Court for Virginia, where the question arose, was divided in opinion; but on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was decided that the tax in question was not a direct tax, and had, therefore, been levied according to the Constitution. It was observed, on this occasion, that the Constitution contemplated no taxes as direct taxes but such as could be laid in proportion to the census; and that the rule of apportionment could not apply to the tax on carriages; nor could such a tax be laid by that rule, without great inequality and injustice; and the argument by which this inequality and injustice were shown was conclusive against the contrary construction.*. But although duties must be uniform, and direct taxes apportioned according to numbers, yet the provision of the Constitution with respect to the latter does not restrict the power of Congress to

* 3 Dallas, 171.