Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

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 support, there were some who were jealous of the powers 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.

impose taxes on the inhabitants of the states only, but extends equally to all places over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction; and applies to the District of Columbia, and to the territories, which are not represented in Congress.* The power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia, includes the power of taxing its inhabitants. But Congress are not absolutely to exercise that power, though they may, in their discretion, extend a tax to all the territories of the United States, as well as to the states. A direct tax, if laid at all, must be laid according to the census; and, therefore, Congress has no authority to exempt any state from its due share of the burden; and although they are not under the same necessity of extending a tax to the unrepresented district, set apart for the seat of the National Government, nor to the national territories, yet, if the tax be actually extended to them, the same constitutional rule of apportionment must be applied in levying it. This construction allowing a discretion in Congress as to the imposition of taxes upon the inhabitants of these territories, must, at all events, be admitted to be the most convenient, as the expense of collecting a tax in some of them might exceed its amount. Nor can this departure from the rule which holds representation and taxation to be inseparable, be considered very material or important with respect to those settlements which are still in their infancy, though rapidly advancing to manhood, and looking forward with perfect confidence to complete equality as soon as they attain the requisite maturity. As it relates to the District of Columbia, the construction

* 5 Wheaton, 317.

in question can hardly be regarded as impugning the great principle alluded to, inasmuch as its inhabitants have voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and adopted the whole body of Congress as its legitimate government.

A question, however, of much greater interest and importance has arisen, in regard to this power of taxation, which, of late years, has been much discussed in our public councils, and has not yet ceased to agitate a portion of the Union. I refer to the authority of Congress to impose duties on articles of foreign importation for the encouragement and protection of domestic manufactures; and to the proceedings which call in question and deny the constitutional existence of any such authority in Congress, and denounce its exercise as usurpation. The constitutional validity of those acts of Congress which impose duties on importations, with that end in view, has never been presented as a point for adjudication in the Federal Courts, but a legislative construction in favour of the right of Congress to pass them was adopted and acted upon at the earliest period of the existence and operation of the Federal Government. Of late years, however, a controversy has arisen on the subject, which at one time threatened the peace and integrity of the Union; and which, though suspended, can by no means be considered as definitively settled, some examination of its merits may be useful, if not necessary.

Although Congress has the express and exclusive power "to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," yet it is denied that these words confer authority to lay duties and imposts for other any purposes those of discharging the national debts, supporting

than

« AnteriorContinua »