Show INCOME TAX ABLY 1 BAR I Judge LeGrande Young Delivers Address on an Proposed Amend Amendment Amendment ment to the s UTAH ASSOCIATION MEETING I r or of Legal Lights Charles Baldwin PreSident Stephen L Richards Secretory Baldwin masia n 1 cl ancery and reform referee In bankruptcy was elected president ot of the Bar of U lh Itt at Its annual meeting which held Monda Monday afternoon was In the ted fed federal era eral building Stephen L Richards was wast t elected se secretary and L B Swaner i treasurer l Prop ased changes In tile fire constitution were postponed for consideration con I at n a speCIal meeting te to 00 called In April The Tle former vIce continued In offIce for another year are 1 ns as tol J lotus ws Fist st j judicial dlela dIstrIct WIllam nv IW l judicIal district J James Albert Howell ThIrd judicial district Morris L RitchIe Fourth ju juI dIstrict I John E Booth Filth Fifth I judicIal district Joshua Greenwoo Sixth ju judicial district John rohn F Chides ter and Seventh judicial jJ district A H Christensen Waldemar Van Colt Cott chairman l The executive committee which I is to have charge chargo ot of the tho annual banquet 13 composed of Richard W Young George Halverson Frank K IC and II H J 1 JUDGE YOUNGS PAPER Judge Le La Grand Young the tho retiring i presIdent or of tho association chose a as i the tho subject of oC his annual address the r r proposed amendment to the federal Con Constitution providing for an Income t tax c The effort teas learned an and much J thought had evidently been beon expended upon the preparation ot of a notable pa per In part Judge Young said As you ou well know lenow one more yea ea 1 and the tho ot the state again meet Md and there are somas qu quirt tons In regard to the general laws lawf particularly In regard to the practise s 1 ot of our courts whIch are In to lawyers and to which wh ch It might be profitable for tor them to give I some rome attention There Is however one matter that will come before the next that mIght not bo be uninteresting for the members of the bar to consider at this time I have reference to the proposed d amendment or of the Constitution of the f 7 United States which was Introduced In 6 the tho United States senate nate Jul July 9 I 1903 1900 I f t f and which under our system will have i to be b by of the thel l legislatures ot of the several states before 1 It becomes a 11 part of the tho law ot of the tha i land Tills This proposed ret reads ls AI as follows The Congress shan shall hay have l power to le levy an and collect taxes on In Int incomes comes from whatever source derived t without apportionment among the oral eral states and Vo without regard to any census or enumeratIon Subdivision three section two taro or of the tho Constitution of artIcle one provides that R Representation n tation and dIrect taxes shall be apportioned among the l states which 1 may be included within t this ls Union Then again the first paragraph ot of sec sectie cc tI tie eight r reads ds That Congress shall f have power to lay and collect taxes taxa f duties Imports and excises 1 I That oil duties Imports and g gt t t shall hall be uniform This proposed amendment Is a 11 result ot of the decision of the supreme court holding invalid the i act ot of Congress of Aug Hi 11 1894 known I is as the Income tax law This law last pro prod vided Id d that after Jan 1 1595 and until Jan 1 1900 there should be asse assessed serl and paid annually upon the gains proC prof profits Its and Income received In the tho ceding year b by every person residing In n the tho United States a tax ot of 2 per on the tho I amount S1 so derived and nud above aboe over oer EXE EXEMPT FROM TAX ins are excluded from this States Slate municIpalities cor associations conducted organized or for charitable religious or educational purposes oses stocks share funds or securities hel held b by all any fry a 01 trustee which Is conducted the tho on benefit municIpal pion Illan and solely for the tho ot of Its policyholders hol ers all these theo are arc exempt It was claimed b by aid those asking the of the court COUlt that the tho Income tax wa In ht violation of the tho of the Constitution of the United States bemuse first the tho law In question ha POsing a tax on the tho income or of rents or of real estate thereby Imposes a tax Upon the real estate itself and second the tho Imposing of a tax on the interest or 01 other Income of bonds or personal Person property thereby imposes a tax upon the personal estate Itself and that l such a tax was IS a direct tax and void QC be cause Imposed without regard to the thi rule of apportionment and third that the law Jaw was Invalid be Causo imposing Indirect taxes In viola tion ot of the constitutional requirement of uniformity The claim was aIR also made that tbt tn taxation should not only onh be uni form torm bUt M ds be equal and and that the law was invalid fur for Imposing IL a tax upon Income that wa was received from state and municipal bonds which was In violation of a great Sleat unwritten principle that the gO gov government should not tax the Instrumentalities mentalities of the states nor the states the Instrumentalities of the general government Judge Young referred to the or of the tho nation In elucidating the tho term direct tX and after atter having gone back to the foundations or of United States laws and quoting a number of notable finally de deduced First we adhere to the opInion al already already ready announced that taxes on real estate being direct taxes taxes on the rents or Income of real estate are aro equally equall direct tn taxes es Second we are arc of the opinion that taxes on personal property or on the tho Income of personal property are aro like likewise likewise wise direct taxes Third the taxes imposed b by sections 7 to 37 inclusive ot of the act of 1891 so tar far as It taIls falls on the tho Income of real estate and ot of personal property being a 11 direct tax In the meanIng of the Con Constitution Constitution and therefore unconstitutional al and and void because not apportioned to representation all those sections con constituting constituting one entire scheme of taxation ore necessarily Invalid thus practically holdIng the whole act acl Invalid And now the important question arl arises and Is to bo be considered by the legislatures egI oj of the several states an and particularly I by this whether or not v we are going to sustain an amend amendment amendment ment to the Constitution that practically cally does doc i h those principles In regard to direct and In indirect direct taxation and to representation So going ng hand In hand with taxation so strenuously fought for an and carefully maintained b by the builders of the Con Will wo we sustain an amend amendment m ment nt that opens the door te to taxation that Is utterly Inconsistent with the fundamental principles o of our govern government ment just because in the language of ofa ofa a chief justice a government of dele delegated delegated gated powers should be found to be benot not less powerful but less legs absolute than the tho Imagination of the advocates of governmental Power had supposed No one wishes to curtail or limit the government ot of the United States In Its necessary and proper powers no one havIng Its Interest at heart denies to the government If the exigency arises the power and right to take every ever Inch of cf ground piece of property nay to to Its demands ever every citi citizen citizen zen of this great republic but If nil all these are taken they should be taken In accordance with the rules of the law of the land and never contrary to those great bulwarks ot of cIvil liberty so C care carefully lC tully fully prepared by the eminent men who 10 sat In the convention ot of 1759 |