Direct Taxes Under the Constitution

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900. Excerpt: ... THE ORIGIN, PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE DIRECT-TAX CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. II. HIS study of the procedure of the federal convention has A shown that there was manifested no general desire to limit the taxing powers of the new government. Patterson's plan, which would have restricted Congress to impost and stamp duties, received the support of only two states; while Randolph's propositions were reported to the convention by a vote of seven states to three, Maryland's delegates being equally divided.1 But in a few directions limitations were finally imposed. When the power of regulating commerce was granted, the convention provided that duties, imposts and excises should be uniform throughout the United States. Then the institution of slavery required and secured protection in three provisions--namely, the limitation of the duties that could be imposed upon the importation of negroes, the prohibition of taxes on exports and the specific provision concerning capitation taxes. Finally, out of the controversy over representation for the slaves in the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives, there came the requirement that direct taxes and representatives should be apportioned according to the rule of numbers. Thus it seems that the constitutional requirement concerning direct taxes originated in the struggle to effect a compromise on the question of representation for the slaves. It had no basis in any rational scheme for regulating taxation, and could have had none. There is no reason for thinking that such a plan would have occurred to any one, had the convention not been at its wit's end for some method of effecting an adjustment of the question of representation. Historically, the provision must be viewed as a relic of the great ...