*1 41 KNOWLTON v. MOORE. Syllabus. v. MOORE.1 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ERROR TO UNITED THE EAST- FOR STATES

ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Argued December 6, 7, 1899. 5,

No. 387. Decided May 14,1900. plaintiffs Knowiton, the of error were executors the will of Edwin F. Brooklyn, York. The defendant in States of New error was the United of for First Internal Revenue Collection State Collector District for the Brooklyn October, 1898, Knowiton died at his of York. Mr. and New duly proved. portion of Under the the act of will was of June printed length opinion at note in a of the court in case, of States of Revenue United Collector Internal demanded return, personal showing the amount of the executors estate deceased, and legatees and distributees This return the exec- thereof. protest, that asserting made under June utors the act of 13 was unconsti- personal This return showed that the to over tutional. estate amounted dollars, a half legacies, millions and that were two and there several $10,000 $1,500,000. from under each to ranging over The collector levied legacies shares, and purpose on distributive the tax but for the the rate of fixing considered the whole of the estate of fixing each, the rate the deceased for coming not the amount legatee individual under each the will. As the rates under the statute progressive legacies from low rate on were amounting $10,000,to a exceeding $1,000,000, high rate those greatly this decision increased aggregate amount the taxation. protested The executors on the (1) provisions grounds, that the unconstitutional; (2) act were amounting $10,000, to less legacies any than tax or not (3) duty; $100,000, $100, that a per taxed at of $2.25 the rate only subject $1.12|. to the rate having was Demand been made payment, payment and, protest; collector was made after under it, the Commissioner of Internal had Revenue refused refund paid. the executors commenced suit to recover amount so The Cir- ground cuit sustained a Court demurrer no cause action alleged, suit, brought dismissed the which was then here writ Held; of error. (1) clearly imposes legacies That statute on the shares, personal esstate; on the distributive whole Buffum, The docket title of this case is Eben J. Knowiton and Thomas A. Knowiton, deceased, executors testament Edwin F. last will plaintiffs error, Moore, B. United States v. Frank Collector of Internal Revenue, District, State of First Collection New York. TERM, 1899.

Counsel for Parties. depend upon (2) the tax That it makes the rate of the character of the deceased, taking connecting being primarily links those classifications, progressively determined increased ac- ; *2 cording legacies to the amount of shares relief, (3) denying all the court erred in and That below it should plaintiffs to recover have held the entitled so much of the tax as taxing legacies exceeding dollars, ten resulted from thousand increasing and the tax rate with reference the whole amount the deceased legacies estate of from which the were derived. distributive shares law, the Roman and Death duties were established ancient and Finance, Germany countries, laws and other Eng- modern continental colonies, an land and her and examination of all shows that tax laws of principle gen- in their essence nature rest death is the particular power erating taxing from which the being, source takes its and that transmit transmission from the dead to living immediately on which such taxes are more vested. particular great of a When construction statute will occasion inconven- ience, produce inequality injustice, that view is not to be favored if interpretation present another and more reasonable in the statute. provision article I of the that “all The in section 8 of Constitution imports States,” throughout uniform and excises shall be United re- uniformity, synonymous purely and is geographical fers to a throughout operate generally the United States.” expression “to case embraces the District of in this Columbia. The considered statute court. in the opinion case is stated The Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham Mr. Carlisle, Mr. G. John in error. for Mr. Peter B. Olney, II. Otis plaintiffs Charles Mr. M. Mr. Ward Curtis, Henry Ward, Edmond William Mr. Chamberlin, T. Mr: F. Mr. Julien Chamberlin, George B. R. Mr. E. 8. Jr., Mr. Davies, Coudert, Frederic Mansfield brief. Mr. W. S. were on Mr. Carlisle’s and Mr. V. Hopkins n Mr. Cha/rles H. Thomas B. Mr. Thacher Reed, Thomas briefs filed for error. Otis plaintiffs

Mr. error. Solicitor General defendants ad- filed an M. Mr. and Mr. Ward Henry John G. Ca/rlisle B. Mr. Peter Peckham, II. ditional Mr. Wheeler brief, brief, on this and Mr. William Edmond Curtis Olney MOORE. Mr. Thomas B. Reed and Mr. Thomas Thaeher for plaintiffs in error filed a brief in to the of the court response suggestion its 26, order etc. Mr. February Solicitor General filed a brief in supplemental response suggestion court.

Me. Justice White delivered the of the court. opinion act June c. which is 13,1898, usually of as the War Revenue spoken Act, Stat. (20 va- 448,) imposes rious duties and other taxes. stamp Sections and 30 of the statute, are therein prefaced by heading “Legacies and Distributive Shares of Personal for the Property,” provide assessment and collection of the taxes which are de- scribed in the sections in To determine the question. issues arise this record it is to decide whether the necessary taxes are void because to the Constitution imposed repugnant *3 of the United and if to ascertain valid, they de- fine their true import.

The was thus Edwin F. controversy Knowlton engendered: died October, 1898, State of borough Brooklyn, New where he was domiciled. His York, will was probated, and the executors therein named aAs duly qualified.' pre- the assessment the taxes liminary imposed by provi- sions of the the collector of statute, internal demanded revenue of the executors that make return the amount they showing of-the deceased, estate of the personal disclosing legatees and distributees executors, thereof. The asserting they were not to make the return because the unconstitu- obliged of sections and 30 of the nevertheless com- statute, tionality under disclosed that plied, personal protest. report estate was at and afforded full infor- $2,624,029.63, appraised take the amount of mation as entitled to same. The those reached ac- This was $42,084.67. assessed was sum table which shown cording computation printed on the page. following

ái TERM, that the table, collector, whilst

It levy- apparent, and distributive shares, tax on the legacies right ing same, rate of yet, purpose receive fixing view the whole estate of took into the tax, laid the tax was whilst is, deceased. That legacies, *4 fixed and distinct thereof was the rate by separate right estate the deceased. The the entire executors thing, tax, and also as to the the entire method against protested of the The it were as fol- protest which was assessed. grounds lows : “ act of of the under wfiich it Congress The provisions collect the said tax or and to assess are in duty sought impose, v. MOORE. Opinion Court. 8 and of article sections I, 9, of the

violation provisions are therefore void. States, of the United and Constitution to Charlotte A. Batch- Knowlton, 2. The George legacies W. each amount Mass., Church of West the Unitarian

elor, Upton, un- are not tax to less than $10,000, if act of even such der the the said said Congress, provisions void. be not unconstitutional provisions a brother the testa- Knowlton,

“3. The to Eben J. the said and under provisions amounts tor, $100,000, only rate per $100, the said act should be taxed at the $1.12-|- if said act be not un- not at rate of even $100, $2.25 per constitutional and void.”

Demand been for made the collector having payment, with a threat to distrain in refusal, case accompanied was under written which paid grounds protest, repeated above stated. In the the tax was recited receipt given been had under to avoid the use paid protest compulsory proc- A ess. was petition refunding presented, subsequently executors, which the were reiter- grounds protest ated. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue made an having adverse suit was ruling, commenced to present recover the amount The facts as to the paid. assessment and collection of the taxes were averred, the refusal of the internal revenue commissioner to refund was The for refund- alleged. petition was made a ing part The pleadings. right repayment’ (cid:127) based the averment that the sections statute, under of which authority amount had been assessed and the. were

collected, unconstitutional. The Circuit Court sustained on demurrer, no the.ground that cause of action was alleged. The .claim was and the suit was rejected, dismissed costs. questions arise this writ of review error, of the Circuit judgment are Court, First, fourfold: should taxes have-been refunded because direct they taxes, being Av-erehence to article apportioned repugnant section of the Constitution of States; the United if second, the taxes were not direct, were levied on created they rights state solely by law, for their continued existence depending on the consent of the several volition *5 TERM, 1899.

Opinion the Court. of it could to which not, and as control, therefore, no. to has power taxes third, if the were not direct, its authority; exercise taxing or which were not assessed were objects rights and upon beyond the taxes were nevertheless because void, the reach Congress, uniform the United were not as re- throughout they the of9, article section Constitution of the United quired the fourth, taxes be held to have been States; because,although constitutional, in all nevertheless respects they illegal, assessment the rate of since their tax was determined by amount estate the deceased, aggregate not the sum or the or distributive shares, legacies to same, take the which were the which objects right law taxes were placed. it an of these may be, abstract,

Although analysis would a consideration logical questions, sequence, require we shall not do for stated, the order so propositions just whether the taxes are direct reasons : The following inquiry determination or indirect must involve prior objects are law they assessed, imposed rights upon know what the law as- it essential since becomes primarily learn the order nature of the completely sesses taxes the contention as want uniform- to s'olve So, also, burden. not to understand only objects rights it is ity, requisite method ordained the statute for taxed, which are must be the uniform- case, since This assessing collecting. involves considered, it be whatever knowledge aspect ity, an of which law, understanding taxing operation at of what the arrived without clear conception cannot be we first, reasons shall commands to be done. For these law death what consider objects rights general way, are are termed in imposed. Having, England, they reached a conclusion from review of the of such taxes, history has on we shall decide whether Congress subject, such taxes. This we shall settled, par- levy being analyze ticular act under for review, pre- ascertaining purpose form of tax for the mode of assess- cise provides ment which it we of, directs. These questions being disposed v. MOORE.

Opinion Court. which the act the taxes shall determine whether are imposes want because uniformity. void, apportioned all that the and collection sides of some It is conceded levy *6 the sections of law of in form death duty provided exact form in of the tax and mind, this question. Bearing not be defined, need since method of its assessment presently .the more to the so specific interpreta- doing appropriately belongs direct our hereafter atten- to which shall tion of the statute we are deemed of tion. Taxes this character universally general but to its will not to eo relate, nomine, passage by property in descent cases of as taxes distinguished intestacy, as of such, on because its real property, imposed words, In other the- contri- ownership possession. public which death on bution duties exact is of predicated passing as the result of as from a tax distinct on death, property prop- from its disassociated transmission or will, or erty receipt by of the result Such taxes so considered known intestacy. Roman law and ancient law of the of continent Eu- Smith’s Nations, Wealth of London ed. of rope. 1811, vol. 3, rule of the ancient French p. Continuing at law, in France inheritance and present day taxes are legacy enforced, collectible as duties. are being stamp They included officially under denomination of indirect general taxes, the rea- all son that inheritance and taxes are legacy considered as levied “ occasion on the isolated act.” This view of the inheritance and tax conforms legacy to the official defini- which taxes, tion of indirect among inheritance and taxes legacy in classed, are France at prevails the present day.

definition is. follows: “ Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon pos- session indirect taxes enjoyments are rights; levied upon an event an happening exchange.” In and other continental countries Germany in various forms death are enforced, main, duties by way duties. stamp are both and in there, They treated as re- theory practice, from the occasion of not death, hence as sulting legally on with taxes levied because of equivalent its merely TERM, 1899. Opinion Court. Science Finance (Yeblen’s Cohn’s ownership. translation), Dos Passos’ Inheritance Tax sec. 1. 282, 283, 350; Law,, secs. “ Death Duties,” The term inheritance legacy form are described in in- whatever taxes, imposed, England, of such dicates the nature taxes. In Hanson’s Death generic 1, it is said: is the oldest Duties, p. Historically, probate duty form of death been established 1694.” The duty, having referred to was a fixed tax thus on the probate dependent sum of the within the personal.estate jurisdiction probate letters of court, means probate grant payable as an administration was treated expense stamp residue, out of In be deducted estate. known tax, tax was what became as a supplemented by legacy of a evi- at first collected means affixed to stamp receipt, of a share dencing personal prop- payment of a It is to consider the deceased erty person. unnecessary form this latter tax. The tax the mere change *7 but administration, as of was and deducted an charged expense the individual interests the collected legacies upon passing In 1853the it was tax probate duty imposed. upon to, referred a supplemented by tax, just the legacy law This reached the succession interests duty. known the death of a and in- by person acquired real estate passing not covered the act. by terests personal property as an but administration, treated also not expense This was out of the interests and collected was charged upon tax. subjected is shown the secondsec- by of the successionduty

The nature is which thus condensed same, of the act by tion defining treatise: 40 of his at Hanson page on the is tax gratuitous a placed acquisition Succession duty means death person, which passes from either a transfer (called disposition devolution)

of a another (called'the (called predecessor) person one person called this tax is with suc- successor). chargeable Property cession.” Act of 1894, duty superseded the Finance probate

By like the This, termed the estate' duty. what was probate MOORE. was a tax distinct those duty, imposed by Legacy Succession Acts real or Duty personal prop- receipt or an interest some administrative erty, therein, although features modified or a successionduty. regulated out This tax is revenue of the estate. payable general 1 Ch. at Be cited Hanson Bourne, 188, (1893) p. Han- which the tax stated rests thus principle upon at 63:

son p. “ The new the Finance Act, called es- duty imposed by has said tate been but above, duty, duty; supersedes probate construction of the Finance Act lies in remem- key that the new estate it is leviable on duty, bering although prop- was left untouched such as real duty, erty by probate inis substance of the same as the old estate, nature yet probate What it taxes is interest to which some duty. person succeeds on the interest which reason death, ceased by the death. Unless view, clearly principle kept mind is to revert of the act constantly tempted by wording succession which have no real connection principles subject.”

This sufficesto indicate the summary origin, development and the death duties. A full theory thereof underlying analysis will be found Dowell’s vol. Taxation, History 148', p. in Hanson’s Death

et and in Duties; the treatise of Dos seq.; Passos, section where the various acts are notes, re- to. ferred the colonies of Great

(cid:127)In Britain death as a general obtain. Some of the rule, statutes are modeled those the mother taxes on levy etc., country, legacies, passing, their measured value and on estate Others, proper. *8 have the estate tax without the tax. The

agáin, merely legacy statutes are reviewed in Hanson’s treatise, be-. appendix at 717. ginning page

A of in the death laws enacted our study retrospective duty national and state, own will show rest country, they upon the same fundamental Avhichhas caused the conception adop- of tion like statutes other in their countries; and, especially national do development, conform they substantially (to

vol. clxxviii —4 TERM, 1899. 50 Opinion of Court. the evolution of the extent to which system Eng- they go) land. Act of

As tax. 1797 early Congress imposed legacy out- 6,1797, c. Stat. This act was 11,1 527. July probably of a recommendation contained of the Com- report growth mittee of in the on House Means, Ways presented Tuesday, March Annals of Fourth first 17, 1796. -Congress, Congress, et collec- 993, The session, recommended, 1, pp. seq. report tion of millions of two dollars a direct tax; 2, by imposition “of a all testa- of two centum ad valorem ... duty per descents and of successionsto estates mentary dispositions, those to wives or lineal intestates, husbands, excepting parents, ” 3, the and, various descendants; duties; imposition stamp an increase act con- 1797 carriages. on. tinued force until June 2 Stat. c. In 30,1802. act, as in the statute of English legacy duty supplementary the mode of collection duties statutes, providéd stamp on the or laid receipts evidencing payment legacies the amount was, shares distributive personal property, and not tax, upon charged legacies like the legacy English The text of the statute residue of estate. margin.1 printed XI, July 6, Chapter 1T97. Representatives Senate and the Rouse enacted 1. Be it Section Congress assembled, That after America States United next, levied, there shall be collected and day thirty-first of December stamp following, the several duties throughout paid United vellum, parchment, piece piece or or sheet or every skin wit: Dor any printed or either of the instru- be written or paper which shall receipt any discharge or other following, . . . writings to wit: ments or account, by any testamentary any left will or other in- or on part personal estate divided strument, any of a force of share or or for distributions, the amount whereof shall be above the value any statute dollars, dollars, the value of one hundred not exceed fifty and shall shall exceed the value of cents; the amount thereof one twenty-five where dollars, fifty cents; five hundred not exceed and shall dollars hundred dollars, the additional of five hundred sum of every further sum and for Provided, nothing in That this act contained ex- shall . . . dollar. one tend, any duty any legacy left will other testamen- charge with personal estate, part of a instrument, to be divided share tary *9 KNOWLTON MOOEE.

Opinion of the Court. In sections 111 112 of act of 119, 1,1862, July chapter 12 Stat. a in 433, 485, enacted. Like legacy again character to the act of on was a tax imposed legacies or distributive But in shares of the same personal property. was contained still another form of death

chapter duty. By a section 194 amount probate duty, proportioned estate and to be was levied. The result paid by way stamps, of 1862, of the act duties was to cause the death therefore, in resemble those then imposed by greatly existing that is, tax, each first, England; legacy chargeable against or distributive and a share, legacy duty probate chargeable ofmass The against estate. difference between the only created the act 1862 and system that in existing England was that the act of 1862 did not the succession tax embody pro- for in vided in which interests real England, by estate passing death were to a A detailed reference to subjected duty. of the act of 1862 need not provisions because made, we have shall occasion to do inso which, considering legislation in in effect reenacted, although largely increasing the both rates, or tax on the whole probate estate and the duty tax on each or legacy distributive share. legacy act of 1864, however, added, sections, separate real estate, substantial passing harmony principle succession tax Succession expressed Duty English Act. Thus it came to that the of death pass duties system England prevailing adopted by Congress leaving— of view the out differences rates the administrative pro- —visions were identical, and a threefold substantially nature, ais, probate duty the whole charged estate, legacy each or duty charged upon distributive share person- and a succession each interest alty, duty charged real against The act 1864 was amended in property. several particulars (cid:127) the act of July 13, 1866. 14 Stat. 140. These amend- statute of to, foroe distributions -which shall be left or divided amongst, wife, children, grandchildren person or intes- deceased tate, making or testamentary instrument, any recognizance, such will or or bond, bill, obligation contract, other be made or with shall any State, the United respectively.” for their use TERM, did however, of taxa- materially meats, modify system of 1864. tion the act provided

Whilst the of 1864 act shows that its general plan *10 in mind law, framers had the this fact was English conclusively section 127, demonstrated wherein the or real by succession tax defined in estate inheritance was similar terms substantially in to that contained the Succession The Act. English Duty embodied in the act of 1864 that identity conception in was observed this court v. existing England Scholey Rew, 331, 23 Wall. that the where, matter holding the assessment a succession was the devolution of the estate or the to become entitled the same, right beneficially the court said etc., (p. 349):

“Decided that such is the true support proposition the of the act is derived from fact that the act of Parlia- theory the

ment under was from discussion particular provision has the same construc- borrowed received substantially largely tion.” c. 509,

In 28 Stat. what 27, 1894, 349, the statute August tax was the sec- was effect legacy imposed by provisions 553. The tax was eo nomine an income but Ib. tax, tion 28. of a the since tax, in one respect legal equivalent was to make the annual income which the items going up among “ the of all value personal was money property taxed was was This law not enforced. or inheritance.” acquired by gift on the that the income assailed was ground Its constitutionality from real included income estate far as it so tax, direct tax within was a meaning property, personal it had not been because and was void Constitution, apportioned. this court. On the considered was twice contention The & Trust v. Farmers’ Loan Company, Pollock first hearing, that income extent that, it was decided U. S. tax was a direct estate, from real rentals included taxes unconstitutional, was therefore real estate, tax on whether not Upon because apportioned. question real estate ren- on from of the tax income unconstitutionality other taxes to enforce pro- impossible dered-it all. legally divided in the court opinion. statute, vided equally KNOWLTON MOORE. S. U. (158 On rehearing 601) previous

Ib. 586. opinion that it was moreover decided the tax to, was adhered was likewise and that direct, income personal tax was therefore void because such pro- the law imposing court said The (p. 637): apportionment. viding The tax sections Third. twenty-seven thirty- imposed far as it on the in- so falls of the act seven, inclusive, a direct tax and of come real estate property, being uncon- and, Constitution, therefore, within the meaning and void because not stitutional according rep- apportioned one entire all those scheme resentation, sections, constituting are invalid.” taxation, necessarily the income decision, tax, invalidity carried with it the other different taxes

particulars quoted, included in which were was not income, predicated upon of such other the con- taxes, unconstitutionality solely upon the statute there was such an clusion union inseparable *11 the elements of between income derived from the revenues of estate and real the other property constituents in the income statute, that could provided not be divided. they The court said (p. 637):

“We do mean to that an act say laying by apportionment direct tax on all real estate and or the in- personal property, come not also thereof, excise might taxes on lay business, privi- and vocations. But employments this is not leges, such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. invalid Being as to the greater part, as the tax if falling, would, any part valid, held direction which could not have been con- in connection templated except with the taxation considered as we are an entirety, constrained to conclude that sections twenty- seven thirty-seven, inclusive, which became a act, law without the of the signature President on are 28, 1894, August and void.” wholly inoperative

An inheritance and legacy one of the States imposed by was considered in (Louisiana) 8 How. Mager Grima, 490.

The of the court, delivered Mr. opinion Chief Justice Taney, such taxes. The upheld right levy same subject on in United States v. passed S. 625. Perkins, U. TERM, was whether to the

question United property bequeathed States could be included in a succession tax. It was lawfully decided that it could be. In the delivered Mr. Justice opinion, it was said Brown, (p. 628): “ The tax is not upon sense of property ordinary but term, and it is upon it, not until right dispose it has its contribution to yielded that it State becomes the property legatee.”

Again (p. 629): “ That the tax is not a tax itself, upon property upon its transmission will or both in held, is also New descent, York and in several other States.”

Yet again (p. 630):

“We think that it follows from this that the act question is not is an to tax the open objection attempt of the United since the tax is property legacy before it hands the Government. The reaches legacy becomes the States after it has only United. a diminution suffered to the amount of the and it is tax, only this condition that assents to a legislature bequest it.” more, Once was considered quite recently, v. Illinois Trust & S. 283. Bank, 170 U. Magoun Savings this A of Illinois The issue for decision was : law of State rate inheritance tax, progressing imposed the amount of the beneficial interest This progres acquired. in the courts of Illinois as sion rates was assailed being violation of the of that State, constitution requiring equal uniform taxation. The state court decided having of the State, feature did not violate the constitution progressive estab the case the contention that the came this court upon *12 of due lishment of a was a denial both rate progressive process law and within the mean of the of the laws equal protection These of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. ing the course of its were held to be untenable. In opin complaints after McKenna, ion Mr. Justice court, speaking through and taxes of inheritance history briefly adverting 55 v. MOORE. Opinion tlie Court. their in adoption many referred countries,

in other follows 287-288): (pp. of Union States “ enacted in were States Pennsylvania In the United they 1869; West Delaware, 1844; Yirginia, in 1826; Maryland, Ohio, in New Connecticut, Jersey, and still more 1887, recently 25, in 1891, Tennessee 1891; Massachusetts, chapter Maine, 174, Acts, They adopted now by chapter repealed in 1883. Were enacted 1846, in but in North Carolina repealed and 1863, reenacted in 1844, .in repealed Yirginia enacted them—Min- have also in 1884. Other States repealed nesota constitutional provision. been declared, of the taxes have

“The constitutionality based and are explained they principles v. 163 S. 628 Common ; v. U. Strode Perkins, United States 14 422; v. Grat. School 181; Jacob, 52 Penn. St. wealth, Eyre v. 70 366; v. State Dalrymple, 78 Virginia, Lynchburg, field Maryland, re v. 94 U. S. In Mer 589; 294; Mason, Clapp 141 v. 86 ; Hamlin, Maine, 495; N. Y. 479 State Estate, riam’s In re Tennessee, 674; v. 117 Cal Alston, State Wilmerding, 281; ; Dos Passos Collateral Inheritance 20 Minot ifornia, Tax, 162 Mass. v. 113; Furnell, v. Winthrop, Gelsthorpe (Montana) Rew, 51 Pac. 267. See also Wall. 331. Scholey Rep. is not to review these cases or state at It necessary length are are based They they reasoning supported. 1. An two inheritance tax is not one on principles: prop- one on the 2. The succession. to take right erty, is a devise or descent creature of the law, not a natural — a and therefore the which con- privilege, right authority fers it conditions it. From these may impose principles it is deduced that the States tax the discrimin- may privilege, ate between these and relatives, between strangers, and are from this exemptions; grant precluded power by state constitutions respective provisions requiring of taxation.” uniformity equality the whole death

Thus, field,- over looking considering duties in the order in which we have them, is, reviewed the Eoman and ancient that of modern Ger- law, France, and other continental and those countries, many England *13 TERM, Opinion oí the Court. her such colonies where laws have been enacted, legisla- tion of the United States and the several States of the Union, different modes of following appears: Although assessing such duties have different acciden- prevail, although they tal such as names, duties, duties, taxes on the probate stamp or the act of transaction, an estate or a succession, passing estate taxes or taxes, nevertheless tax taxes, privilege laws of this nature all countries rest in their essence upon that death is the principle source from which generating takes its particular taxing power that it is the being transmit, the transmission from the dead to power such which taxes are more rested. living, immediately ascertained the nature of death Having first ques- tion which arises is this: Can the of the United States Congress a tax of that character ? The that it levy cannot proposition . that, rests since the transmission of assumption prop- death is to the exclusively erty by regulating authority therefore the several of a tax on levy by Congress inheritances or form, legacies, beyond power and is an interference the National Government Congress, within which falls alone the reach of a matter state legisla- that this be remarked is to denies to Con- proposition tion. It which was conceded subject-matter, right gress of its of the very early within history scope (cid:127) act of which ordained legacy taxes, government. founders of our time when the at a government was adopted Constitution of our actively framers participating pub- construction to the Constitution affairs,thus practical lic giving to establish. Even the then members had which helped they had not been who delegates convention, of the Congress have had a must keen Constitution, framed apprecia- had Constitution influenceswhich and the shaped tion all embodied, which.it since related questions restrictions must its have at been, Constitution adoption It on their minds. would, under date, vividly impressed early if a tax should have be indeed been conditions, surprising these deemed to be without objects beyond levied question within state because exclusively authority.' grasp MOORE. Opinion the Court. (cid:127) at similar taxes have of remark It moreover, is, worthy and, been enforced; time and for a considerable other periods on other was assailed grounds their constitutionalty although want of author- court, held unsound question *14 was tax inheritances legacies to a on ity levy Congress con- Whilst these in the acts never question. urged against them us for the moment put let are of siderations great weight, which proposition to aside consider reasoning upon duties rqust to death impose denying power rest. remem it be always unless arise

Confusion may thought to trans it is the considered, power bered that, fundamentally which death or mit or transmission receipt property The duties. all death is the levied qualifica subject upon by them or describing of such taxes taxes, tion as privilege unless on misconception, levied also may privilege, produce understood. They words be accurately these import to been used where of a state have power government has in form some of inheritance or legacy levy particular of a been assailed because constitutional limitation instances has these Under circumstances, taxing power. question of the ^whether, arisen because State regulate power there did not therefore death, the transmission less trammeled to tax exist a inheritances right legacies to other of taxation, and, than obtained as subject-matters upon view affirmative a tax inheritances being adopted, for this has taxation, reason been of as privilege spoken legacies tax on as to the then, privileges. conception, privi the transmis whilst occasion of fully conceding lege, of the death a usual sion is receipt property by maintains that a wider discretion yet taxing power, privilege because of the vested Courts right regulate. death duties which maintain this view have therefore treated from limitations which would as disenthralled otherwise apply, did if the not. exist. The authorities regulation privilege to in maintain doctrine have been referred already Trust have made from v. Illinois the citation we Magoun & 170 U. S. 288. An illustration found Bank, Savings TERM, 58

United v. States S. Perkins, U. where the right State of New York a tax on a levy bequeathed legacy Government of the United States was rested on the privi part the State of New York to successions. lege enjoyed by regulate Some state on the courts, other have held hand, that, despite no power of taxation exists as regulation, greater privilege . inheritance taxes than as to other property. Cope's 191 Penn. Appeal, St. v. 53 Ohio St. 1; Ferris, 314; State State v. 40 Minn. Gorman, v. 61 N. H. 624. In 232; Curry Spencer, State Switzler, Missouri, 287, the legislature of Missouri to a uniform tax the succession of estates levy was conceded, such tax was declared not to be a tax though sense. The upon property court nevertheless ordinary held that the tax in wliieh was question, progressive- rate, it invalid, because violated a of the state provision constitution; decision, effect, because the being leg islature had the successions, was not powerto regulate thereby a, *15 tax which was sanctioned state justified levying by constitution.

All courts and all however, as we have governments, already conceive that of shown, occasioned property transmission on death, the tax although such, differing property a usual of taxation. Of is, nevertheless, con- subject course, of to death power we sidering Congress impose eliminate all of to do so than exists thought greater privilege toas other form of as the to taxation, suc- right regulate not in cessions is vested States and Congress.

It is not denied to a that, with the subject limita- compliance in the Constitution, tions of taxing power extends Congress of to all usual taxation. as said in Indeed, the License objects 5 Wall. after to Cases, 462, 471, Tax the limitations referring Thus Constitution, and thus limited, it expressed only, reaches (the taxing power subject, Congress) every may at The be exercised discretion.” limitation which would ex- clude from to tax inheritances and Congress right legacies to is made the contention that as the upon depend power successions is the several States, regulate lodged solely there- is without fore tax transmission or authority MOORE. v. 59

Opinion of tlie Court. death. This is property proposition supported receipt to decisions that the several States cannot a reference holding burdens on the exclusive or otherwise impose powers instrumentalities National employed carry government or that lim into the same execution, and, such conversely, powers the National relation to the itation rests government Charleston, of the several States. Westonv. Pet. 449; powers 4 Wheat. Bank 316, 431, 439; McCulloch v. Maryland, Collectorv. Black, 620; v. New York City, Commerce Day, Co., 11 Wall. United States v. Railroad 17 Wall. 113, 124; 18 Wall. 5. 327; Peniston, Railroad Co.

But the which underlies the contended for fallacy proposition the tax on the is transmission assumption receipt death occasioned is on exclusive imposed property the State to the devolution death. regulate property upon universal of taxation forming thing subject taxes rest is the transmission or inheritance receipt, not the In existing effect, right regulate. legal then, which the rests that wherever proposition upon argument to exclusive either the right subject regulation, by govern- of the United States on the ment one hand or the several States the exercise such other, can alone rights regulated taxed the mission to government having' regulate. But when it is stated, the accurately denies the proposition 'to tax the States which are authority objects confessedly the reach of their within and also excludes the taxing power, from almost National government direct and every of indirect Thus acknowledged objects taxation. many imports within the are exclusively Can it taxing power Congress. said when imported commingled State cannot be because had goods taxed, been at *16 time the

some exclusive prior subject by regulation Congress? interstate commerce is within the often exclusive Again, regu- Can it be that the asserted lating power Congress. property of all or in such commerce is persons corporations engaged of taxation several because subject interstate commerce ? may "regulate Conveyances, mortgages, leases, all and the pledges, and, indeed, contracts property TERM, 1899.

Opinion Court. are its arise from more less ownership, subject which to state its nature. If exclusive proposition here con- regulation^ such be sound, tended for relation dealings thereto even in the taxed form be of a cannot Congress, stamp duty. be doubted that It when argument reduced to its cannot its own unsoundness, demonstrates it essence since leads to the conclusion that both National and state necessary govern- are divested those of taxation ments which from the powers have foundation government to admittedly belonged taxa them. an Certainly, inheritance upon placed the extent of the value diminishes, to of the tax, right but this is a burden cast receive, inherit recipient of the and not State to This distinc- power regulate. tion shows the the case hand of the state- inapplicability made Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in ment McCulloch v. 4 Wheat. that the to tax involves Maryland, power This when destroy.” principle pertinent only power is no to tax a and has no there rela- subject, power In such exists. other words, where tion to case right be of taxation is may consequence to destroy should be to tax confined to the right a reason subjects why even therein, embraced lawfully although be hap- which may instance no harm great that in some particular pens may as to a taxing authority the exercise caused by this But has no its reasoning applica- beyond scope. would it had there be an end of for if all to a lawful tax, tion tax can be lawful defeated if a because that is taxation; say, its when fur- imposition may which is manifested the power follow it would lawful destructive, every exercised be ther no taxation therefore what- unlawful, would become both our constitutional could levied. Under system ever in their and the state moving respective National governments, to tax diverse ob- many have common orbits, authority of its lawful attributes the exercise does not cause jects, government to be a curtailment powers one be an end of the dual if it did there would other, practically established. which' the Constitution of government system in the License Tax decided Cases, contention adversely *17 61 v. MOORE. Opinion of the Court. “We court said: come now to exam 470) where (p.

supra, in to the legislation objection serious ine a more It was for in controversy. argued, to the dealings relation on a that a license’to busi carry error, defendants it that the in con on; to carry dealings no authority ness gives trade State in internal troversy parcel internal trade of a State is not that resided; tlie defendants and can by Congress, legislation any respect, subject, its that licensed nor licenses neither be authority; prohibited under acts of must, for such trade, Congress, therefore, granted that and, null and void; consequently, absolutely penalties without on such trade such license could not carrying after thus court, constitutionally imposed.” stating decided that the lieense was a mere form of excise argument, it no conferred on the taxation; business right carry tickets and the if forbidden (the lottery liquor selling traffic) but license was State, to be when applicable engaged the state law such business was ever under to be permitted other of this court done. have out Many opinions pointed relied and render it on, error proposition unnecessary Lane than refer them. do more v. County Oregon, 7 Wall. 8 Bank v. Wall. 77; Fenno,

71, 533, Veazie 547; National Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353, 362; Bank Collectorv. 11 Day, States v. 127; United Railroad 113, Wall. 17 Wall. Company, v. Peniston, Railroad Co. 18 Wall. 327; 5, 36; California Railroad Co., 127 U. S. v. Central 40. Pacific then to a are consideration brought We of the particular which is death duty, manifested form the statute under The sections consideration. are embodying printed margin.1 13, 1898, Act of June ch. 448. ’ person persons any having charge That Sec. or trust as adminis-

trators, trustees, any legacies executors or or distributive arising shares personal property, the whole prop- from where amount such $10,000 erty shall exceed the value, as aforesaid sum of in actual passing, act, any person possessed passage of this after the property, such the intestate laws of or Territory, any per- either will State therein, by deed, or interest transferred grant, bargain, sonal sale TERM, 1899. of the 'stat- obvious that the exact is at the meaning It' outset there are clauses when it, free from ute is not perplexity, to con- at from their rise context, looked may give apart statute must mean It is however, views. *18 plain, flicting one of three things: possession enjoyment or after gift, or made or intended to take effect in of, persons, any any person to grantor bargainor, the or or or the death to be, otherwise, body bodies, politic corporate, or shall and or or in trust paid are, tax, hereby duty to a to be to the United States made or personal prop- follows, say: as is to the amount of said Where whole erty $10,000, shall exceed in not exceed in value the sum value and shall — $25,000, the tax shall be person persons any the interest First. Where or entitled to beneficial property ancestor, such sliail or lineal brother or sister be the lineal issue person possessed jn'operty aforesaid, to who died of such as at the rate seventy-five every $100 in- cents for each and of the clear value of such property. terest such person persons any Second. Where or entitled to beneficial interest person property the descendant of a toother or sister of the shall be in such aforesaid, fifty at the rate of and possessed as one dollar cents died who every of the clear value of such interest. $100 for each and persons any person entitled beneficial or to interest Third. Where mother, property be the brother or sister of the father or or a shall such mother, persons of the father or of the a brother or sister so descendant aforesaid, every at the rate of three dollars for each and possessed as died of such interest. of the clear value dollars one hundred persons any person or entitled beneficial interest Fourth. Where grandfather grand- the brother or sister of the or property shall be in such grandfather mother, the brother or sister of the or or a descendant possessed aforesaid, person as who died at the of the rate of grandmother, every hundred dollars of the clear and value of such dollars for each four interest. persons any person entitled to beneficial or interest Where Fifth. any consanguinity collateral property degree be in other than shall such stated, pérson stranger be a blood to the or shall who as hereinbefore aforesaid, body politic corporate, possessed or at or shall be died every of the clear for each and hundred dollars value of

rate of five dollars by Provided, property passing will, legacies all or or interest: That such Territory, person or wife of the laws of State or to husband who duty. aforesaid, exempt tax possessed shall be or died property of said shall exceed the amount or value the sum of Where $100,000, duty $25,000, but not exceed sum or value rates of shall multiplied half, one set forth be and one tax above shall where or property $100,000, shall or value of said exceed sum of the amount but KNOWLTON MOORE. on the of the whole imposes

1. The tax passing awith rate estate, progressive of the depend- amount personal estate; or, whole the sum ing upon $300,000, duty multiplied such rates of be sum of shall shall not exceed property of said two; amount or value shall exceed the and where $1,000,000, the sum of such .$500,000 shall not exceed rates of sum of half; multiplied by and one duty two where amount or shall $1,000,000, duty property shall the sum such rates of exceed value of said multiplied three. shall be duty charge upon shall be a or aforesaid lien and That the Sec. 30. every person may twenty years, who die as aforesaid shall, period, fully paid discharged within to and or until the same States; every executor, trustee, administrator or before the United any parties legatees, payment distribution entitled benefi- therein, pay, deputy shall collector interest collector of the cial person resident, the deceased was a district of which the amount of the legacy share, such or tax assessed distributive shall also deputy schedule, said collector or make and render collector a list or statement, duplicate, of such amount share, distributive *19 duty has the amount of accrued or together thereon, which shall accrue affirmation, by or to his oath be administered verified and certified thereon having by magistrate or officer lawful some oaths, administer such may prescribed by manner as form and be such the Commissioner of In- Iievenue, schedule, which list or statement ternal shall contain the names person any every entitled to therein, each and beneficial of interest together interest, duplicate value of such the with the clear of schedule, list immediately by him delivered, be or shall statement and the tax thereon collector; upon payment paid such and delivery such of such sched- ule, deputy said or collector or grant list statement collector shall to such duty receipt receipts or person paying tax a or such dupli- same the prepared cate, provided. be shall as hereinafter receipt Such or re- duly signed by ceipts, delivered such deputy collector, collector or executor, evidence to shall be sufficient entitle such administrator or trustee payment by every and allowed such which, to be credited by tribunal laws any Territory, may empowered or upon of State or to decide and set- accounts of executors tle the and administrators. And in case such execu- tor, or trustee neglect pay administrator shall refuse or the aforesaid duty deputy collector aforesaid, or tax to the or collector as within the provided, neglect hereinbefore or or time shall refuse to deliver to said col- deputy duplicate the of schedule, lector or collector or list statement property personal legacies, of or estate aforesaid, such under oath as or neglect schedule, or refuse to deliver shall list or statement of leg- such personal acies, property aforesaid, or estate under oath as or shall deliver deputy to said or collector collector a false schedule or statement of such personal legacies, property estate, or give relationship or the names and of TERM, 1899. it levies is on the of 2. The tax which placed passing legacies of at a rate, shares or distributive personal property progressive of such rate determined, the amount being by separate or distributive the volume of share, sum each whole estate. This is mode in which the tax personal and which was sustained assessor, computed by below; or, court The tax is on the or distributive shares passing legacies persons untruly, truly entitled to beneficial interest therein or shall not correctly set forth and state therein the clear value such beneficial interest, property personal no or where administration such or estate granted laws, existing have been or under shall allowed collector or deputy shall collector make out such lists and valuation as in other cases refusal, thereon; neglect or and shall assess the the collector appropriate any proceedings commence before court of the United shall States, person against persons name of the United such or as custody possession property or of such may the actual or constructive have thereof, part property estate, any and shall such personal or or or same, estate, any portion judgment to be sold personal or proceeds court, of such sale the amount and from such or decree every expenses description all costs and duty, together with or such tax court, paid, balance, any, and the if shall be first de- by such allowed to be court, paid of such under its direction the order according to posited title to the same. The shall establish deed or persons as person or to such property personal estate, conveyance of such or or any proper deeds, or decree, judgment or such executed under thereof, portion so sold effect, into shall carrying same vest in the lawfully charged with officer delinquent personal or title purchaser all the thereof decree, judgment such or and shall re- virtue under estate sold property or estate from portion the lien every of such other lease every person persons And this act. who created charge thereon record, custody any paper charge file or possession, have in his shall contain, any concerning prop- information such supposed to containing, or any person may aforesaid, passing from who die erty personal estate request deputy collector or aforesaid, the same at exhibit shall *20 States, district, any of the United law officer and to of the collector may act, deputy agent, his or who de- duty under this performance his person, having possession, any his if such And to examine the same. sire papers, records, neglect shall refuse or files or custody any charge or such aforesaid, pay he shall forfeit request as on exhibit the same legal controversies where such deed Provided, in all or $500: That sum the recital subject judicial investigation, said deed be the shall title requirements truth, and that the prima its of the evidence shall facie by government. complied the officers had been law v. MOORE. 65 on each, rate deter- separately with progressive personalty, such or distributive shares. of each of the sum legacies

mined by that the tax is not on par threshold, theory On the very a death, but shares or distributive passing ticular legacies de amount is on the whole personal property what which describes is is rebutted by heading, ceased, “ but as of deceased persons, legacies as the estates not taxed, whilst not This, shares property.” distributive personal the stat to be considered interpreting is conclusive, proper and a literal will interpretation exists when ute, ambiguity v. 2 States Fisher, Cranch, or United work out wrong injury. 3 Wheat. Palmer, 631; v. United United States ;386 U. S. v. 72; Smythe Fiske, 91 Railroad, v.

States Union Pacific 144 Carolina, Co. South Coosaw 374, 380; Wall. Mining U. S. 550. thus clearness, words of section may,

The opening arranged: “ or trust, or having charge That any person persons or or distribu- trustees, executors administrators, any legacies . . . from tive shares personal property, arising passing, act, of this such possessed after the any person passage laws of will or the intestate either State by any property, are, . shall made be, . . hereby or Territory, to be the United tax, to a or follows: paid duty etc. that is to say,” the statute on collocated,

Thus clearly imposes duty shares, or and not on the distributive whole legacies It on estate. does the tax levied say personal left but it is the, estate deceased person, imposed or distributive from such on shares property. arising legacies same made clearer that in sec- very This considering interest which is described as tion the tax any being may sale been transferred deed, have bargain, gift, grant, or intended take effect in made possession enjoyment after the death of or bargainor, any person grantor etc. That is to whilst law say, places persons,” a like death, puts distributive share passing vol. CLXxvni—5 *21 TERM, on have been made in

burden may gifts contemplation than of death and otherwise last will and testament. the from which the has been

Following paragraph foregoing the statute makes five distinct classes or enumerations, quoted, the tax rate of the is it is made more whereby varied, is, or the or less, want of upon depending relationship, relationship, or of the distributee to the deceased. But this enumer- legatee ation can only that the law explained upon hypothesis’ a intended to or less tax a or greater dis- impose upon legatee from his tributee, or his arising degree relationship being in blood to the deceased. Thus it cannot be doubted stranger of each that, assessing tax, position separate legatee, or distributee must be into taken view order to ascertain the rate which the statute establishes. One of two primary things must arise. When the' rate of tax is thus calculated upon attitude to the deceased each of the particular dis- legatees of the tax must be deducted tributees, sum either from each or from the mass of the whole particular estate. legacy personal If it is deducted from each then is manifest particular legacy, that the tax have been levied, will imposed mass upon each estate, particular legatee beneficiary, will since the share such have rate taxation person paid the amount of the and the legacy predicated relationship, of the want thereof to relationship, recipient the deceased. This no room would case, be left for being tax was on the contention that the whole imposed estate. taxation, On the other if whole sum of the hand, on all the shares, calculated on the basis of each bene- relationship be deducted received, the amount from the ficiary mass of would estate, then, each recipient pay only proportion the amount without reference to his relationship deceased. This would result in tax on the whole imposing personal estate, the burden all distribute the benefi- ratably among But ciaries. to reach this the entire classification, grading rate would have to degrees relationship, dilemma, therefore, disregarded. involved the contention that the statute not on tax, each imposes whole but on the share, distributive legacy personalty,

KNOWXTON MOORE.

Opinion tlie Court. levied and collected to the classi- If the tax is this: according it is or distribu- statute, fications in the clearly it is levied on the on the entire If, tive share. contrary, of the statute the classifications must be then estate, ignored *22 which the act be maintains and the construction upheld the rate of tax the of the benefi- has classified relationship by has then the ciaries to the and classifica- deceased, disregarded the tax without reference to such tion wholly by collecting This besides construction, relationship. eliminating large the would do violence to its act, of the text of portion plain the rate of the tax which is to make the .depend import, upon those of the links with the de- character connecting taking other This is fortified of the ceased. act. portions greatly of the close of the fifth subdivision section one of At the with a classification remote clauses relation- respect creating it deceased, or want of is relationship, provided ship, follows: “ That all or Provided, or will, legacies passing by of State or the laws husband or wife of any Territory, died shall be aforesaid, tax possessed person exempt or duty.” ” “ the word is Now, mark, will, etc., ex- passing by that the whole amount of the estate, cludes conception thereof which not is the particular portions passed, subject And the the tax. from the tax or exemption, duty, to the husband or etc., wife of a im- given deceased, legacy, the scheme of taxation is of etc., legacies, plies whole estate. This must so, personal unless can that the said statute terms to a hus- exempts legacy wife from the otherwise band legacy imposed, although 'taxes resulted from the no statute. legacy the collection the tax contained in sec- provisions of the act confirm the construction

tion 30 that the passing or distributive and not share, the entire each legacy of a deceased forms the estate tax. person, Thus, and distribution to the before an execu- payment legatees, etc., “ administrator trustee is tor, amount of required pay or tax assessed such distributive share,” duty legacy 1899. OCTOBER TERM.

Opinion Court. “ “ and to and render a schedule,” etc., make duplicate, amount of such or distributive share, together the amount of which hás accrued, thereon,” shall accrue duty and the contain schedule the names of required eaoh entitled to beneficial every person interest therein.” Whatever be the it is when illumined obscurity light which we previous have reviewed, legislation, already thrown it. The and distributive shares passing legacies were the taxed under the act. objects English legacy They were the taxed the act under subjects By act of as we seen, have estate whole was reached whilst a distinct probate duty, charged upon distributive shares When legacies personal property. act of 1864 was enacted there was added a succession tax on real estate, modeled, as said court as shown act Succession itself, Act, English Duty treated each of real estate as a distinct particular gift succession, *23 liable for the laid the act. The tax separately duty legacy the tax and succession were thus co-related and rested the upon same that both is, considered, created theory; a tax on they the of each distributive gift share of both passing particular real estate, the and treated as one from the personal separate, distinct other, each as estate taxation. forming To assume when the succession was that, duty adopted which tax, was also reenacted in that legacy act, lost its character and not on the levied, became tax of the passing ¿mount shares, distributive the whole legacies the estate before would the entire passing, destroy harmony and lead to a that a confession confusion of system, thought existed which cannot in be reason admitted. Indeed, it is dif- ficult to that 1864 conceive the act of that either contemplated or the which succession legacy duty should duty imposed be whole the tax to estate, since be the whole paid by estate was therein distinctly separately provided on means If tax the whole estate probate can duty. same be, would inserted, also im- implication, reasoning that the succession must be likewise treated. It ply would thus that the entire 1864 would be act of force its despite v. MOORE. law either the failuré to reenact present repeal or succession duty. whole estate tax on is levied the the act it was considered

What made to the amendments demonstrated also addition “That amendments was: in 1866. One of these of 1864 act aforesaid or share property passing any legacy personal as aforesaid who died minor child of the possessed to a person unless such this section, under from taxation shall exempt thousand dollars, sum of one share shall exceed the legacy be liable to that shall excess above sum case the only under that tax pro- taxation.” Another was paid said “ be of 1864 should of the act of sections 124 and 125 visions share, or distributive from the deducted the act words, In other which the same is account of charged.” it was that to be done, impossible commanded expressly that done should be compatibly any hypothesis under have seen, estate, for, on the whole we was estate the tax from the whole the deduction of that assumption essential. in mind when the of the act of 1864 were That the provisions drafted is since it is not act was disputed apparent, present and distribu- so far as the tax on review, the act under legacies is an exact concerned, tive shares is original reproduction act contains to the extent of 1864, act except present We to a increase of rates. say relating progressive provisions in it act contain because the does not act, present original 1866; to which we have made in referred, the amendments had be- act that the writer of the fair inference being present that text him the text of the act of fore original the act of 1866. as amended by law relate added

As only present provisions *24 these unless it follows that, rate upon legacies, progressive on the estate instead clauses a tax whole added provide taxed is not it that the estate is demonstration whole legacies, act. That the rate features inserted progressive by present no bring act now under review have even tendency We re- now to we demonstrate. result, about such proceed in 29 as are essential, such of section putting portions produce TERM, Opinion Court. brackets the found in words the act of 1S9Sunder review, which not in contained corresponding provisions existing the act of LSGi: “ That or any person persons or trust, as having charge administrators, executors or trustees, distribu or any legacies from, tive shares arising personal where the whole property amount such personal aforesaid shall exceed property sum of thousand dollars in actual after the value, [ten] passing, of this act, passage any such person possessed property, either will or intestate laws of State or any Territory, or any personal or interest property therein, transferred by deed, sale grant, or bargain, made or intended take effect gift, or possession enjoyment after death or grantor or or bargainor, any or person bodies, persons, body or politic in trust corporate, shall other-wise, be, hereby made are, to a to be United duty paid that is to : follows, the wrhole amount say [Where said shall exceed value ten thousand property shall not exceed value the sum thousand dol twenty-five ” the tax lars, shall be:] this are five benefi-

Immediately classifications of following each ciaries, rate. These are followed varying pro- rate gressive clause, as follows: Where the amount or value of said shall exceed property

[“ the sum of thousand but shall not exceed dollars, twenty-five the sum or value of one hundred thousand rates of dollars, the or tax duty above set forth shall be one one- multiplied by half, where amount value of shall said ex- property ceed the sum of one hundred thousand but dollars, shall exceed the sum five hundred thousand such rates of dollars, shall be duty and where the amount or multiplied two; value of such shall exceed the sum five hundred property thousand shall sum of not exceed the one million dollars, dollars, such rates of shall two one- .duty multiplied half and ; where the amount value of such shall exceed the sum of one million rates of shall such dollars, be multiplied by three.”] clause

Observing closely text, apparent *25 v. MOORE. is is an exact what taxed out the therein which copy points ” “ the ten for the word the substitution act of 1864, except under the act is therefore, taxed, present one.” The subject of 1864. under the act This is the taxed which was the same to the Coming, then, of a certainty. mathematical equivalent n first it of the the end paragraph, added at says: provision £- said shall ex amount personal property Where whole creates no new however, in value,” This, object ceed etc. that said where personal but

taxation, property, simply provides exceeds certain that is, specified, property previously in the further ad So, rate shall amount, imposed. given law Where feature, out the says,££ dition, pointing progressive exceed the of,” of said shall sum the amount value property objects taxation-, thus etc., referring again clearly which -wasiden act, in the first described part property 1864. described in the act of The demon the same tically thing that feature conclusive stration, therefore, progressive act no creates new taxa clause added present rates the said tion it ; progressive simply provides sentences, mentioned which is described opening it of 1864. as in the act as the act of 1864 Now, taxed, was exactly each not the whole but estate, distributive particular legacy cannot be law conclusion share, escaped present does the same there is added thereto a except pro thing, rate. gressive on the then distributive legacies shares,' being

the rate determined the relation of the primarily by being leg- atees distributees does the law command that estate, rate of tax which it on the progressive imposes legacies distributive shares shall be measured, separately amount of each or distributive share, whole estate ? This, sum we have said, of the act is the which was the asses- interpretation adopted by sor the taxes under and which was sustained levying review, court below. The unsoundness of the that the act measures construction, of tax the rate the whole we shown what estate, fully have under the act of 1864 the said, for, already legacies TERM,

Opinion of tlie Court. alone were distributive shares taxed, and inas reenacting the exact retained,- language (omitting separate pro visions the act of the whole estate taxing by probate and as rates taxing successions,) progressive only *26 refer to the as taxed, of it object 1864, the act provided results that under no reasonable construction can the present act be held to for a rate of tax whole provide computed estate. if Even, however, all the be shut out previous history and even if view, the omission from this act the whole estate which obtained under the for the act of moment the text of the considered would forgotten, law, alone, not construction that for a tax support provides each and distributive share rate tax measured by by the whole estate. In order to make this clear we will briefly however, the text. In so, analyze we eliminate the at doing made counsel to show the tempt by argument significance thereof used the course of the debate cer by expressions by tain members the Senate. Maxwell v. U. S. Dow, 176 581, cited. cases there of the act turns words, meaning largely following “ contained in the section 29: Where opening paragraph of such as aforesaid whole amount shall personal property ten thousand dollars actual value, exceed the sum of passing,” refer to the whole amount of the etc. If these words estate then the words added in left a deceased the act of by person, “ the whole viz., to the end of the where amount paragraph, shall exceed in value ten said thousand, personal property the sum and shall not in value exceed thousand twenty-five stated in five the tax as classifications next be,” shall dollars, same It must refer to the follows likewise enumerated, thing. “ where the clause, that the rate amount says, progressive exceed the sum of,” or value said shall must etc., is, relate to the whole amount of same thing; of section 29. If as stated in the sentences estate, opening view be then all an estate of ten thousand correct, legacies dollars are and all be their amount, whatever legacies, exempt, in an have the dollars, estate above ten thousand rate original and that rate in- classifications, to the adjusted according V. MOOSE. Opinion tlie Court. the whole amount of estate,

creased progressively on the other If, hand, the amount legacy. not “ amount of such the whole personal property where words of ten thousand found dollars,” the sum shall exceed aforesaid to the whole amount relate of section in the first sentence dollars are under ten thousand then legacies of each legacy, rate ten thousand above pay original and those taxable, and become classifications, pro- in the provided to the amount of the legacy, increase clause, according gressive the estate. amount and not the whole first sentence are not words simply But pivotal “

“ but the whole of such the whole amount property,” This can only amount of such personal property aforesaid.” where what is-con- sentence, refer to preceding part ” “ can alone be is and the words as templated aforesaid or distributive shares personal prop- arising any legacies In after the of this act.” other . . . passage erty passing the reference clause establishes the statute itself words, *27 to is the or amount referred value of each the whole par- sum considered, ticular from the de- etc., legacy, separately passing to the taker thereof. And this construction ceased of the vital derived from what to, words referred immediately precedes what is sustained follows that them, by immediately them, is, “ the tax on the clause or inter- imposing any personal property “ transferred est made or therein, deed,” etc., intended in or take effect after the death of the possession enjoyment or This lat- etc. bargainor, any person grantor persons,” item treats each of in ter clause property given contemplation otherwise than last will and as a testament, of death distinct be for considered the the tax. entity purpose levying of such considered, Each becomes items, therefore, separately the whole amount such tax, purpose personal the statute that there property, clearly recognizing may par- tial and distinct interests in each item of such personal property, in as an interest for life in one with a remainder another.- person Thus two which are linked clauses, together . “ of such it de- words the whole amount property,” personal that referred to and distinct the amount is the velops separate TERM, 74

Opinion of tlie Court. sums or items of personal not property the whole passing, amount the entire estate, been which, has shown in con- did sidering act not previous to tax proposition, purport as such. of the act lend subsequent provisions to this cogency

view Thus, section it is made of the executor, duty “ over etc., to the pay collector the amount of the duty tax assessed such distributive and he legacy share,” .is “ also commanded to deliver to the collector schedule of the amount such or distributive legacy share, with together amount which has .accrued or shall acrue thereon.” At the risk of we recur to a repetition, fea- again ture in it prior because legislation, very pertinently points error out-the which has rise to the that the given assumption ” whole personal estate as aforesaid meant the act of 1864, means act, whole amount of the estate left deceased, and the whole amount of each legacy considered as a estate for the of taxation. At- separate purpose tention has been called to the fact that, accordance the act system, engrafted English provisions- of 1862 a the act succession-or real estate inheritance tax. In it was so, declared the law that each doing unequivocally of real a distinct succession or es- separate gift tate. In other the statute itself announced the words, rule that the whole amount of each estate to taxation, under the succession was the whole amount each item of tax, separate treated as an estate for the and collec- gift purpose levy it tion of the then, taxes thereon. can How, supposed the act section relating contemplated should have whilst the one whole amount of meaning, the estate to succession or real sections estate relating taxes should have another ? Must not be considered that the *28 statute for no such discordant discrimina- provided unjust on the tion, that, it the contrary, harmoniously expressed rule from the of a is, obtaining beginning, levy legacy tax on estate death to each bene- personal passing by particular treated as amount to taxation and ficiary separately subject rule same to the tax succession each applied by treating

KNOWLTON MOORE. 75 item of real estate as whole amount of an estate passing ? taxation separately purpose is true that in the execution of the act of 1864 practical .It “ amount of such the words the whole . . . personal property ”

shall the sum one thousand exceed dollars were adminis- construed entire estate left tratively applying personal one and not to the distinct deceased, or interests. legacies It that where an did not resulted estate one thousand equal no tax was or collected distributive dollars, upon legacies shares therein, where estate exceeded'one thousand dol- lars all distributive whatever the legacies shares, amount were taxed. from each, this adminis- Any resulting force view, however, trative weakened fact that con- construction as' to the other of the act trary prevailed portions the succession where the amount of the 1864, tax was duty, the amount or determined value of each item of real The administrative construction therefore property.

act of 1864 was since contradictory, enforced one rule on the one hand and an one on the absolutély other. Be- conflicting the whole estate was taxed as such sides, probate duty found in the act of 1864.

As we have the act of said, 1864 was repealed After the Stat. 256. the court repeal, was called upon, 104 U. S. Mason v. Sargent, 689, consider when whether, held life estate in a one who died to the subsequent the interest act, in remainder was repeal legatees inheritance tax. In this passing upon question said court (p. 690): was question sec. of the act of imposed by c. June 1864, 173, Stat. (13 or dis- 285,) legacies shares tributive the sum of $1000, property exceeding after from act, either passing, passage decedent, or an intestate, executor, testate hands of administrator trustee, entitled varying rate, party beneficially more remote in less consanguinity, stranger from whom it with a blood, person passed; proviso or distributive interests intestate estates, legacies passing should wife, husband such tax.” exempt *29 OCTOBER TERM.

Opinion tlie Court. in conflict with the thus is The expressed assumption opinion not each or dis- that whole legacy the estate contemplated, entire amount share, but the tributive personal property well construction be considered to and this deceased, the may the the act of effect reenactment have been adopted by an to con- intention the 1864, without change indicating trary. that there is doubt however, construction,

Granting, the which must from view of result consequences adopting taxes the that the act each a rate de- separate by theory legacy amount of the not the but amount termined, by legacy, by estate left we deceased, the whole should be to solve relied the doubt compelled against interpretation on. The rests thus which such construction principle defended The is on each argument. tax separate estate. distributive but rate is measured whole share, In other the construction words, assumption proceeds upon their to that intended tax legacies, separate that of a distinct and own but value, wholly separate thing. that underlying But this principle equivalent saying of which A, is that house only the asserted interpretation rate of be dollars, taxed, worth one thousand may house the value to A’s attributing is to be determined by tax the amount. a hundredfold worth which house, B’s may result from must which inevitably inequalities gross illustrated. Thus, are person readily admission of theory to a of $10,500, hospital an estate bequeaths leaving dying, be five cent, of tax The rate would per ten thousand dollars. Another hundred person amount tax five dollars. and the million dollars, of one leaves an estate time, dies at the same institution. same thousand dollars- ten- bequeaths amount of the cent, tax The rate of would per 12|- samé that the It would thus person, come pass $1250. character, in thd same relation, the same and taking occupying two two different pay sums would persons, equal in the other. twice tax that he would one more than case which show how counsel are found tables In the arguments the construe- are the inevitable profound inequalities KNOWLTON MOORE. as is Clear the demonstration which

tion must they produce. one serve instances afforded make, only multiply they we have given. just example bound to heed to the where therefore, are, rule,

We give *30 occasion incon construction of statute will great to be that view is venience or produce inequality injustice, reasonable if another and more is interpretation avoided present Bate Co. v. U. S. in the statute. 157 Sulzeberger, Refrigerating v. 4 How. v. Rousseau, 680; Wilson Bloomer Mc 646, 1, 37; ; 14 How. 553 Blake v. Wall. National 23 Banks, Quewan, United States Wall. 486. Indeed, 307, 320; Kirby, the which rise both of of the confusion constructions gives which we have comes from considered the want just the statute out Hanson in a which we have of pointed by passage insight that it arises from not is, heretofore mind quoted; keeping between a tax on interest distinction the which some the on a death and a tax the succeeds interest which person reason the two death, ceased different by being objects of taxation. be doubted aside some,

It from may express constitutional whether the taxation restrictions, by Congress property with- of one an accompanied person, that arbitrary provision tax shall fixed the rate of with reference to the sum of the thus about another, property bringing profound inequal- have would noticed, we not which transcend ity the limitations from those fundamental of free arising conceptions government all which underlie constitutional On systems. this question, of its we however, do not even aspects, intimate an opin- no occasion for as so ion, doing exists, since, as Aveunderstand Aveare tew, that it clearly does not opinion sustain the construction on it the court placed below. elimination, By process we have re- reasoning order,

sorted to to demonstrate the unsoundness of the two first contentions as to the of the statute it un- meaning renders in elaboration of say necessary anything significance the statute embodied in the third is, Avhich proposition, distributive, the tax on the legacies shares, rate being determined primarily classifications and being- progres- TERM,

Opinion tlie Court. to the amount increased legacies sively according when other is at once shares. Its correctness apparent of. amount of such views As the whole' are disposed ” dis- to the of each aforesaid relates sum legacy considered it follows that all tributive share legacies separately, and that those taxed, ten dollars are not thousand exceeding relation- above amount are taxed degree primarily by con- five classifications absence thereof, specified ship tained in that the of tax is statute, rate progressively increased the amount of each distributive separate (cid:127) it statute, share. This correct being interpretation follows that the court maintained a below erroneously contrary and, assessed collected was construction, therefore, sum due for amount than the law. actually larger the law thus determined, precise being meaning whether the tax which and hence direct, imposes question arises consid apportionment, requirement have been eration. That death duties, generally, *31 in as different from taxes all countries considered beginning on account of the levied on real or directly personal, property, is demonstrated the review thereof, by possession ownership made. It has also been established which have we previously that such said, taxes, have almost heretofore what we have been life, of our national treated the beginning concern Of course, direct taxes. and not as they passing transmit, if there no death, for property which tax levied on the occa be there would nothing This and admin sion of death could be legislative computed. has taxes been directly upheld view of such istrative 349, to 23 Wall. which we Rew, v. have court. In Scholey was the constitu referred, the presented heretofore- question suc act of imposing provisions tionality The was that the as to real assertion cession estate. duty duty it was a direct tax Constitution, because was repugnant tax was decided to be con and had not been The apportioned. The court said stitutional. (p. 346): it clear the tax or levied the act under But not a within the of either consideration is direct tax meaning v. KNOWLTON MOORE. 79 these Instead of that it is excise tax or an provisions. plainly authorized section of article which vests duty, one, eight in and collect taxes, duties, lay imposts, and excises de- the debts and common pay provide fence and welfare. general *, * * * * * * * , “ Whether direct taxes in the sense com- Constitution other tax tax land, than and a tax on prehend any capitation is a not nor is it to de- question decided, absolutely necessary termine it in the it' casé, as decided that present expressly the term does not include the tax cannot be income, in from a tax such as the one succession distinguished principle in involved the present controversy.”

This is decisive on, here relied contention against contrary it be unless that the decision v. Rew been over has Scholey ruled, therefore is no longer controlling. is that v. decision Rew was argument Scholey

overruled in v. Pollock Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, S. 129; U. S. U. 601. This contention is thus supported in argument.

As course v. Rew the court Scholey opinion said that taxes on successions could distinguished from an income tax, therefore decision the Pol principle case, lock held that an ‘it direct, income tax was is ar decided that an inheritance tax was also direct. gued, necessarily But in the Pollock case the decision in was not v. Rew Scholey On overruled. of the decision in correctness contrary, the latter casé as matter which de actually cided effect was reaffirmed.' In statement consequence made in an tax Rew, that income succession Scholey could not one from the other, case distinguished *32 was on in relied in Pollock case counsel and argument the members of the court who as dissented, establishing, for the reason stated, that the income tax was not direct. The court, treated v. however, New to an Scholey inapplicable tax, income because it considered that whether an income tax was direct was not in case, involved the latter actually which was used in hence illustration v. Rew as Scholey TERM, 1899. 80 Opinion the Court. have was not to been income tax held decision on the an an income tax was whether or not direct. question court S. The said U. (157 577): Rew, Wall. was the case of v. 23 a succession

“Scholey which court an held excise tax or tax, ..the ‘plainly duty’ of the devolution estate become bene right or the income same, thereof, entitled ficially possession tax It was like the succession of a held State, or expectancy. 8 v. How. and the Grima, dis 490; constitutional Mager of a State and tinction between the of the power succession of not States was United regulate property been the mind and does not have referred to, appear to. stated that act Parliament,

court. The opinion under was which the consideration bor provision had same rowed, substantially received construction, hold that a under that succession is not a tax cases act but on the actual benefit de income upon property, determined as re In individual, Elwes, rived prescribed. v. General & H. & H. C. 719; 362; N. Attorney Sefton, 11 H. 1023; L. 3 H. & C. Cas. 257.” C. (H. S. L.) therefore, comes to made, now this: The argument Although which court case thfedoctrine considered as in the Pollock v. Rew decided in was not Scholey been over actually having an nevertheless, because was made example use ruled, v New Scholey was disregarded, in the course opinion overruled The case therefore Rew. issue Scholey the Pollock was whether an case income tax in the Pollock presented of the Constitution. within contentions direct meaning were thus On involved the one presented. case hand, on land that taxes taxes only capitation it was argued within the of th.e direct, Constitution, con meaning such matter of first as a sidered impression, previous adju construed Constitution as had having dications import. direct that, it was asserted hand, taxes, the other On principle, on sense, embraced land the constitutional only'taxes on but all burdens laid real or taxes, capitation which were of its to a because ownership, -equivalent affirmed that such and was direct property, pre *33 v. MOORE. had vious of this court settled to the con nothing adjudications in were thus The issues which Pollock trary. presented case, it had been reserved observed, will Scholey expressly v. it said Wall. Pew, was (23 where 346): direct in the sense of Constitution Whether taxes compre- tax than tax and a on land, hend other tax a is capitation it a not nor is decided, deter- absolutely necessary question mine it in the case.” present Pew, which was thus reserved Scholey question was for decision in the Pollock de- case, presented

cided that taxes on the in- case, the latter the court holding come of real the- legal equivalent property a direct on which the income was de- levy property "and But rived, therefore there was required apportionment.

no intimation the Pollock case that inheritance taxes—-which had been held in v. Pew not to be Scholey direct, which had from all time been considered as not on being imposed property, real or but as personal, understood, levied ordinarily being on transmission or occasioned death, receipt property and which had from- the foundation of the been government treated as a or excise—were duty direct taxes within mean- of the Constitution. ing Undoubtedly, opin- course ion it case, Pollock was said if that, a was direct within the constitutional sense, the mere erroneous qualification of it as an excise or would not it take out of the duty constitu- tional as to requirement But this apportionment. language related to the under and was but subject-matter consideration, statement a tax which was in im- itself because direct, reason its could posed property solely by ownership, to it changed of excise or by affixing qualification Here we are asked to duty. decide that a tax direct tax which has at all times been considered as the antithe- of such a tax sis ;(cid:127) has ever been treated is, excise, because to its occasion rise which gives levy.

itBut is asserted that it was in the income tax cases decided that, in order determine whether be direct within the a tax it meaning must be ascertained whether Constitution, VOL. clxxviii —6 TERM, 1899.

Opinion Court. it first can cast, law burden one whom paying If he the tax it to another cannot, thereafter shift person. hence, be direct the constitutional and, would then sense, in other . be a however obvious respects might duty, impost *34 it be levied the rule of must cannot excise, uniformity From this that assumed it is be premise apportioned. argued be the one on are death duties cannot shifted from whom they are direct first'cast therefore taxes bylaw, they requiring apportionment.

The is in the the income It is true that in fallacy premise. cases of tax certain economists which direct theory indirect taxes are classified with to to shift reference ability to. was not the same was adverted But this disputable theory the basis of the conclusion of the court. constitutional of direct the matter decided. the word was Consider- meaning that had the constitutional rule of its origin ing apportionment to because taxes solely prevent persons purpose their from levied by general ownership being property other than that two rule things apportionment, sound court: -that no distinction existed First, decided on a because tax levied of his between a person solely general tax real and the same solely ownership property, imposed Sec- because of his personal property. ownership general from derived the tax on income such that property, ondly, a direct tax on the real or was personal, legal equivalent derived, which said income was and hence must from property however, lend no conclusions, be These support apportioned. it was and ex- the contention that decided imposts aof tax on ciseswhich are not the essential equivalent because of its real or must solely personal, ownership, generally, it direct because is conceived that be converted into taxes, it would a be demonstrated close could not analysis they be shifted whom first fall. The they person upon considered refuted Nicol now relied upon proposition court where the said: Ames, 509, 515, v. U. S.

“The all other this, commands Constitution must direct taxes be must be obeyed; respects, apportioned, must uniform while indirect taxes be United throughout MOORE. con- States. But while obedience to these yielding implicit it is no court stitutional part requirements, or obstruct the exercise of the lessen, taxing power impede and subtle distinctions abstruse particular by merely more nature of a where such distinction rests tax, upon specified economists than theories political prac- differing tical nature of the tax itself. In of a tax with reference deciding validity these no examination as to purely requirements, microscopic economic or the tax should theoretical nature of be indulged for the which would invali- in a placing category purpose date the tax. or economical As mere scientific abstract, prob- direct lem, as a tax, might possibly regarded when as a matter to the actual practical operation pertaining the tax it Under to be indirect. quite might plainly appear such circumstances, and while theories varying disputable as to the real nature of might indulged court tax, *35 would not be for the of justified, the purpose tax, invalidating it in a class different from that to placing which its practical results would it. Taxation is oonsign and eminently practical, inis, fact, man’s and door, for brought every the purpose its a tax should be deciding upon validity in its regarded actual, rather results, than with practical reference to those theoretical or abstract whose ideas correctness the and dispute contradiction those who are among, in the science of experts economy.” political then, that the tax under

Concluding, consideration is not direct within the meaning on the con- Constitution, but, is a trary, excise,.we are the consider brought ques- tion of uniformity.

The contention is that because the statute exempts legacies and distributive shares in ten below thou- personal property sand because it dollars, the rate classifies of tax according or absence of the relationship the taker to the relationship and deceased, for a rate the amount of provides progressing by the share, tax is therefore the to that repugnant por- tion-of the first clause of section 8 article 1 of the Constitu- TERM, “ excises shall be and

tion, duties, the imposts provides uniform the United States.” throughout whilst that the

The to the contrary, conceding argument not fulfill the tax devised the statute does requirement and those words are when construed equality uniformity, found in constitutions, state asserts that it does thereby follow that the are to the Constitu- taxes question repugnant tion of in the Constitution, the United since the provision “ that and uniform duties, excises shall be throughout imposts States,” the United it is a different has meaning insisted in state constitutions. and found expression uniform, equal In order at to decide becomes these contentions respective outset define the theories necessary upon accurately rest. they

On the one that command that side, proposition and excises shall be uniform imposts throughout United and intrinsic States relates to inherent character tax; that it contemplates operation exacts that when an the individual and taxpayer, property it shall levied, or excise is operate precisely impost, duty that is to individuals; all say, same manner upon proposi- ” the United uniform States commands throughout is that tion when shall be levied, duties excises, imposts, equal in their uniform operation persons words uniform, the sense of meaning equal of most of the States found constitutions now construction is this: That the words Union. contrary do States” not relate the United “uniform throughout its on indi- of the tax as respects operation inherent character whatever or method Con- viduals, plan simply requires the same the tax question, plan gress adopts laying *36 be made the same method must operative throughout is wherever taxed is to that States; United that say, the same must taxed be everywhere throughout anywhere, at rate. The two States, United and the same contentions that the one asserts that be then by saying summarized may Constitution the levy impost duty, prohibits uniform in its and is not equal opera- excise which intrinsically MOORE. KNOWLTON v. other that the individuals,

tion and the of Con- power upon in in the terms of taxes gress levying question Constitution that such taxes restrained only by requirement uniform. geographically as to intrinsic is asserted to find uniformity argument in the car used some Justices support expressions v. 3 Dall. case, States, United 171. The state Hylton riage ments thus referred to are as follows:

Mr. Justice Paterson said (p. 180): on an involves val- States, Apportionment operation uations which are and should not assessments, arbitrary, be resorted to but in case is an in- necessity. Uniformity stant without the intervention of as- individuals, operation and is at sessments, States, once certain any regard easy, and efficacious.”

Mr. Justice Iredell said (p. 181): “ If it can be considered as a neither tax, direct within the nor Constitution, within the term meaning comprehended or excise, there is no in the duty, impost Constitution, provision one and then it must another, be left to such way an opera- tion of the as if the power, taxes had been authority lay given in all instances, without generally whether should saying they uniform; I should apportioned case, presume, the tax to be because uniform, ought Constitution present was intended to affect particularly and not individuals, cases And except specified. is the leading distinction between the Articles Confederation and the pres- ent Constitution.”

And the following passage United States opinion 15 Wall. 111, 121, is also Singer, asserted to the con support that a tax tention distiller, imposed nature of excise, an arose whether in question its imposition upon different distillers the of the tax was uniformity preserved, the court said: “ The law is not in our judgment subject any constitutional The tax objection. distiller is imposed upon nature of an and the excise, limitation only of Con- of taxes of this character is gress imposition they *37 TERM, 86

Opinion Court. The tax here the United States. shall be uniform throughout it is assessed in that is, is uniform its equally operation; law does all wherever are. The manufacturers of they spirits, for and different rule not establish rule for one distiller one all but same rule for alike.” another, used

In it is that this view language opposition urged intended to and doe's in the case was not Hylton Judges character refer to the inherent understood, when not, properly attention to‘the fact differing called tax, that, simply was to Con from the Articles of Confederation, power given excises, the Constitution to levy imposts gress by that individuals*; language thus acting upon it case, whilst uses the referred, word Singer clearly equal, one. And but to a not to an inherent uniformity, geographical in the Head rendered certain this, it is is opinion argued, 580, 594,where, 112 S. objec U. Money cases, considering of steam vessels the owners tion that a tax-imposed upon York from a was each at New foreign landed port, passenger rule of the court, void because not levied uniformity, by any Miller, Justice said: speaking “ it with the same force uniform when The tax is operates itof is found. The where the and effect every place is it be called an tax, as far as can in this case, which, foreign on the business bringing excise passengers uniform, is into this ocean navigation, operates countries where such of the United alike every port precisely can be landed.” passengers uni- favor- the construction geographical

To overcome from the to arise language asserted by government formity that when correctly in the first is, it place, argued just quoted, and in so based on it, the claim does not sustain it understood, it as'authority, if it is does, binding the second place, not the uniformity involved, because the Head cases Money Constitution, clause 6 of sec- hut that portion clause that no declares Constitution, 9 of article of tion commerce or rev- shall be any regulation givpn by preference of another.” those of une State over enue ports referred to clause just if conceded that preference It c. MOORE. Opinion Court. have the same that of course meaning, clause the uniform in- intended. But operation

merely geographical are distinct two clauses import, that the sisted two manifests the distinct mean- difference language *38 the to them. It is affixed apparent should which ings a mere reference to be disposed prior cannot controversy sides, both in effect, is, reliance placed since adjudications, to which of the But view the decisions. same determine become not will one, correct necessary is the authorities cited were at issue the which decided the facts to analyze only the the to elucidate opinions but also cases, language constructions now to placed upon rise the have conflicting given to which the the an examination subjects such language, do calls a critical consideration to for related. As language to in the referred of the Constitution opinions provisions the referred to the cases moment, for on, shall, we put relied as the one and consider mind, controversy presented out to We this course moreover, are, impelled original impression. “ “ the word the fact as the words uniform,” equal found in are now state uniform,” constitutions, and generally have in- contained been with as there and practical unanimity courts as state intrinsic nature applying terpreted by tax and its if it individuals, be that the operation upon the United “uniform as States,” words contained throughout United States, in the Constitution have a different sig- the reason such conclusion nificance, should be carefully stated. accurately and “ it is text, that if word uni- Considering apparent “ ” ” and means uniform form in the sense now equal asserted of the tax, words United opponents throughout ” of all are real and States deprived significance, sustaining must lead hence contention disregard elementary of construction which canon that effect be requires given word of the Constitution. each wider it is to be that the view, remembered

Taking power 8 of and to tax contained section article 1 is to collect lay and excises. . . But all duties, duties, . “taxes, imposts and excises shall uniform the United imposts throughout TERM, Opinion Court. States.” Thus, is not qualification uniformity imposed, all taxes the Constitution authorizes, only duties, and excises. The conclusionthat inherent imposts equal- is ity involves, uniformity therefore, contemplated prop- osition that the rule of intrinsic uniformity applied by Constitution to taxation means of duties, excises, imposts and it other form of taxes. It cannot applicable be doubted that in direct after taxes, levying apportioning amount several 4 of among clause provided section of article 1 of the Constitution, has to choose the of direct and to objects taxation, levy quota so selected. apportioned Even directly upon-the objects if the then, view of inherent be the true none one, uniformity of the taxes so levied would be to such as the rule, subjected relates to requirement only excises. imposts But the classes.of taxes termed duties, imposts excises, which the rule of are those to which the uniformity applies, in the sense principle is in equality claimed, uniformity *39 the nature of the least and least things applicable susceptible look to a enforced. Excises being usually particular subject, the act of and burdens with reference to levy manufacturing are or etc. as varied in form them, them, They may selling with which the as are the acts or taxes are concerned. dealings take conceivable as the form, duties every Impost may by legis lative for be deemed best the welfare. authority general They have been at all times often have sometimes specific. They been when deemed discriminatory, particularly necessary by reason of the tariff of other countries. The claim of legislation to intrinsic the framers a therefore, restric- imputes uniformity, tion where the taxes, as to certain forms of restraint was least it was and the where most needed. omission This appropriate if well construction, founded, discord would create, which the of the and at once the unsoundness proposition, suggests gives rise to the that the view which the inference contrary unity by maintained, of the of the must be the Constitution provisions if one. In it is duties and fact, correct apparent imposts, are controlled the rule of intrinsic the excises uniformity, of the time of the at the methods adoption usually employed v. MOOBE. of such taxes would levy in all countries Constitution in this whilst and, therefore, have to be abandoned country, taxes this char- to the authority impose nominally having denied to do so would be virtually Congress. to acter, power taxes should that direct be appor- that the Now, requirement States, protection tioned contemplated the several among to contribute to called States, their being prevent is clear. burden, more than their due share was deemed and duties, to the as term imposts Giving uniformity applied causes a likewise excises provision geographical significance, as between the look to of discrimination forbidding or excises duties, imposts levying excise one State and different impost duty, subject far isbe, same and another; therefore, may the re- direction and in with a restriction the same harmony And conclu- direct taxes. quirement apportionment that the discrimination one more States sion against possible intended to be the rule was only thing provided im- levy'duties, uniformity imposed upon power excises, greatly strengthened considering posts in the mother state law colonies, country taxation at or about the time of obtained practice of the Constitution. the adoption had

In nowhere limitation on England, conception and excises intrinsic an imposts levy rule of found and the which had utterance,' uniformity practice was obtained, said, to the Pass- may commonly contrary. without notice the of customs special system

ing (import duties a time export) existing England long prior Revolution, which of taxation not replete examples intrinsic fulfilling requirement equality uniformity, *40 to a few we refer of the same nature afforded briefly examples statutes internal taxation in the mother country. imposing in the form into taxation, Internal of was introduced excises, 28, a resolution on March by Parliamentary England passed 1643, and carried into effect an of the date. ordinance same Dowell, 2 of 9. of excises Taxation, these History Many were with reference to the imposed supposed ability TERM, 1899. 90 office, whose was etc., assessed to the same. party property, pay Thus, a was 1747, excise coaches and duty imposed upon other use. 20 ch. Geo. II, 10; 7 carriages kept Stat. 15. In a 1756 excise was duty pos- imposed upon sessor over a certain 29 ch. 14; Geo. -plate weight. II, 7 Stat. 661. In all offices of naval 1758 other than and profit, were to the when military, subjected payment duty salary exceeded one 31 hundred Geo. II 8 Stat. founds. ch. 22. In a was 1777 of coach- duty imposed upon employers men and other men servants. Geo. ch. 39 13 Stat. 103. Ill, ; 17 In a 1779 was not locomotion, all forms of duty imposed, but the usual method of locomotion upon traveling by post, the wealthier Ill, classes. Geo. ch. 13 Stat. among 51; In 1784 a to all laid, horses uniformly respect but in horses for the kept saddle by person, respect kept 24 Geo. ch. 14 Stat. 496. Ill, 31; driving carriages.

It is accurate to the colonies to the Confeder- prior say ation, and of the States prior adoption time Constitution, wisdom im- restraining levy and excises an inherent posts express requirement equality and had likewise nowhere found The uniformity expression. state constitutions revolutionary period (except, perhaps, those of and New contained no Massachusetts Hampshire) pro- to control the visions an intent bodies authorized to indicating of a taxes and raise exercise discretion levy money sound taxation. the mode to be The levying adopted people to commit to their content enactment representatives laws, of reasonable and satisfied with wholesome being pro- and tection afforded free by representative government of the common law the in- general principles protecting life, alienable liberty rights property. Massachusetts constitution that of 1788 of

New that the assessments of rates Hampshire merely required 'and with taxes should be reasonable proportional no view there was such equality, qualification expressed as to the conferred to and levy reasonable authority impose wares, duties and excises merchandise goods, upon any produce, *41 KNOWLTON MOORE. 91

Opinion Court. and commodities whatsoever, into, brought produced, manufac- tured or within the same.” being

In laws of the States taxing original Convention prior of 1787, were allowed from a consideration what exemptions was deemed for' the best and taxes fre- welfare, were general laid from a consideration of the quently of the presumed ability owner to the tax. Discriminations and were pay exemptions also in contained various state which illustrate the laws, taxing discretion in vested bodies of the in States legistative latter We part eighteenth century. print margin a few examples.1 1 chapter In Pennsylvania Statutes, 27, 1782, 5 of the of March a tax was “ upon Negro laid age and mulatto years; servants above the of twelve

horses, cattle, years old; mares and carriages kept above three coaches and by any person for or use, purpose bis her own traveling and for the or pleasure.” The riding chaises or gospel, chairs of ministers of the professors president, or College, grammar tutors of Harvard school masters, exempt were of excises laid certain described carriages, by and passed coaches an July 10, act other Massachusetts 1784, 131, at page Connecticut, In law of the Laws of the listers were required polls in the list of and ratable assets of the inhabitants of the re- spective polls counties to years list from 21 age eighteen to at pounds, polls years pounds; and from 16 to 21 old at listed, nine houses were to be uniformly, according fireplaces; to attorneys the number of at law physicians and surgeons listed, and practitioner were to be the least at a sum, larger practitioners and higher proportion; certain shopkeepers traders, twenty-five class at pounds, lowest propor- and all others in due tion; each allowed and keeper licensed tavern was to be set at fifteen proportion and to be added pounds, profits, their situation ac- “ cording judgment listers; to the best persons any following me- mystery, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tanners, art such as gold- chanical silversmiths,” smiths, occupations and all other works and followed or persons by pursued profits except arise, any pub- business office, husbandry and hire, lic common labor were to be assessed judgment of best listers. assembly general Jersey, (ch. 400) New the act December purpose raising pounds for the support ten thousand for the government contingent expenses and the year 1784, for the enumerated a persons large number items of and articles which were made taxable act, to be valued and rated Single the assessors within stated sums. kept men who a horse to be rated exceeding shillings, at not ten while keep single men did not exceeding who horse were to be rated at not five TERM, 1899. It that the framers be, therefore, cannot of the Con- supposed uniform words

stitution, using United throughout States,” confer im- contemplated levy .to excises, posts yet accompany grant authority *42 awith restriction which had never found as to such expression taxes time at that and which was anywhere, to contrary had obtained both in the uniformly practice mother in and and colonies, States country prior adop- of tion Constitution. one of the most an- But, satisfactory swers to the that the Con- argument uniformity required by stitution is same and uniform as the clause which has equal of since been embodied in so the state constitutions, re- many of sults from a review the under the Constitution from practice From first down to the very beginning. pres- and the rule of inher- excises, ent duties, date, laying imposts uniform or, words, ent other and intrinsically equal uniformity, been and the has taxes, disregarded, principle geograpical enforced. for a Take, consistently general example, uniformity exceeding shillings, taxed at five shillings. slaves were to be not Male work, provided is unable “That slave is to taxed who to no it was profit no to his master may appear to the to be or mistress.” assessors that sale, caught fish were for and saw mills sawed timber where Fisheries pounds. hire, exceeding not were be rated two sale or for Carolina, by passed 28, 1787, 24, 5 entitled an act March Stat. In South year supplies 1787,” raising shillings of nine and act for “An upon years negroes and from 16 laid mulattoes to 50 pence free four was men was those neither lame or dis- free white age, the tax while years age, to be abled, 21 to 50 while tax was between and who were per profits of of one cent was laid on the per And a tax head. shillings ten and clergymen, schoolmasters schoolmistresses professions, and faculties excepted. year reign II passed the sixteenth of Geo. Delaware, by law In 1797, 257), apparently ed., pub. p. and in force (Laws Delaware, Adams’ 896, (lb. pp. 429), adopted unsettled was constitution when taxation, exempted and the assessors parcels land were tracts and poor “to as are regal’d have such assessing persons to due directed poorer not be rated children,” such sort of charge of have a and rated at were to be pounds. Single visible estate men without eight under pounds, exempting, twenty-four pounds more than nor less than twelve years apprentices and twenty-one age, men under however, single apprenticeship six months. out of more than been as had not such KNOWLTON v. MOOKE. duties, rates im- are

specific import specific articles, without reference enumerated to their value. posed It that all such duties are if is manifest intrinsic void, equality be the all the rule, yet controver- uniformity great arisen over the sies which have duties policy impost gener- the economic wisdom of ally, particularly specific contended never has been impose them did not exist because of the clause of the Con- uniformity So, also, stitution. mention made of the form common may on distilled excises the tax with- spirits per gallon out reference to the value thereof. tariff duties have not

Indeed, varied with different arti- only but have varied with cles, the different valuations of the same We few article. cite a instances of the latter character, found the tariff acts Stat. 5,1861,12 293, 27, August August 28 Stat. In of 1861 the act respectively. — imposed valued at On all silks not over one dollar per square yard, *43 centum ad valorem on all silks valued ; over one dol- thirty per lar centum ad valorem on all silk yard, forty per ; per square velvets velvets which silk is the material of component chief valued at three value, dollars or. per square yard under, centum ad valued at valorem; over three dollars thirty per per centum ad valorem.” forty per square yard, the act of 1894

In occurs following paragraph: “ 280. On woolen and worsted made or in yarns wholly part the hair of wool, worsted, the camel, or other goat, alpaca valued at not animals, more cents forty per pound, thirty than centum ad valorem at ; valued more than cents per forty per centum ad valorem.” forty per pound,

So also a of the tariff acts has single paragraph frequently an contained elaborate of minimum classifications and system as well as duties,- below compound exemptions importations certain value. in See discussed Arthur v. provisions Vietor, 575; U. S. Hedden v. 151 572, 520, 127 U. S. Robertson, 521; Arthur v. 112 U. S. 498. 495, Morgan, it be said

Nor can that these illustrations relate to legislation after enacted when long adoption Constitution, TERM, 1899. 94 erroneous as to the of time an conception lapse meaning for the arisen, Constitution had which we have examples just referred are but forms of taxation many types by way and excises which were enacted without imposts ques from tion and have continued an un very beginning, broken line to the sanctioned time, founders of present our institutions and execution all the approved practical illustrious men who have directed the destinies of the public nation. Excise taxes were used the administra largely during tion of President and after the Washington, again during ofwar 1812. It be said these excises none may properly of them uniform now contended according principles no constitutional for, ever raised yet question regard was. about them. A list of some of earlier acts is inserted partial We do not from the cite later revenue margin.1 acts,

1 during generation Federal excises the first after Constitution. Washington’s I. administration. 3, 1791, 15, §§14, 15,'on spirits; pro- March ch. distilled not uniform or portionate country strength. using No on distilleries home made materials. May'8, 1792, spirits; country 32, §1, distillers ch. on distilled taxed dif- 11, ferently cities, villages; no any from those in drawback on § towns quantity gallons. less than 100 45, exemptions. 5, 1794, 1, carriages. Contains some June ch. on Dis § Hylton cussed v. United Dall. 5, 1794, 48, making certain sales of June ch. on licenses for wines or for- spirituous liquors. eign distilled 5, 1794, 1, 2, sugar; June on snuff and refined no ch. drawback § §§ Pennington any quantity Coxe, $12 less than worth. Discussed Cranch, 33. judicial sales; exemption 9, 1794, 65, §1, June on auction ch. insolvency; produce sales, goods of sales of sales of distrained or etc.; land, produced, and of sales when sold on the land where persons removing farming utensils, furniture or household stock *44 place amount . . . shall not residence, where the their former $200.” exceed mills; etc., §8, 3, pestles, 1795, 43, 1, snuff March ch. on mortars § exports than 300 lbs. no drawback on of snuff less exemptions. May 28, 1796, 37, 1, carriages, with ch. on § 1812. II. Period war 24, July 1813, 21, 1, sugar. ch. on refined § exemptions. July 24, 1813, 24, 1, carriages, ch. on with § v. MOORE. and familiar instances such of the numerous because legisla- abound therein. tion which birth to which the con Constitution,

The necessities gave and the its conflicts of formation, which troversies preceded settled its may adoption, properly opinion to its source into view for the taken tracing any par purpose in order to be Constitution, ticular thereby provision-of its Pollock v. Farm enabled meaning. correctly interpret 429, & U. S. Co., ers' Loan Trust of Confederation Articles produced paralysis the want the Continental because Congress taxation, to sustain the enforce necessary gov- body And the needs no more than statement.

ernment proceedings afford abundant Confederation evi- Congress during effort which made to dence of constant overcome this obtain from the States for situation by authority attempts deemed taxes it essential, and thus re- levy it from the embarrassment occasioned lieve fact that all for revenue for fulfillment demands depended wholly upon States. action constant respective Despite agitation the abundant discussionswhich took place 1813, 25, 1, 24, distilling liquors. on licenses July ch. for § 1, 24, 1813, 26, sales; per July on auction ch. of one § cent on sales of J per goods, etc., sales of vessels; exemptions. one cent on other with 1813, 39, 4, 2, wines, on retailing etc.; ch. licenses for August § rate one cities, villages, another country. for towns for notes, 1813, 53, 1, 2, 2, etc., on graduated ch. bank August §§ not ad but per valorem; at cent on commutable dividends. 1J 15, 12, 1, 1814, carriages, graduated ch. on hut ad § December valo- rem. 21, 15, 1, spirits. 1814, on ch. distilled § December 16, 1, 3, 23,1814, sales; ch. on auction on retailers’ § § December licenses. 22, 1, specific January 18,1815, on manufactures. ch. domestic Various § exemptions, $2, under rates, umbrellas under boots ad valorem pair. a$5 kept (annual 1815, §1, 18, 23, furniture January on household for use ch. $200, graduated not ad valorem. The with minimum unit duty) books, exemption 13, exemption etc.; 14, char- family; of certain § § filíe literary itable, religious or institutions. plate. February 27, 1815, on ch. 58, 4, licenses April 19, distilling liquors. ch. § *45 TERM, 1899. 96 it of the to during Confederation, relation period a word of the not can be found whole which can proceedings that there was rise to even then suggestion give any thought with reference to the intrinsic taxing power restraining of a tax individuals. On the the sole upon operation contrary, which was ever and the and form only question every present was the discussed, operation any taxing power be States; in might granted Congress upon respective other the discrimination as States which words, regards might arise from a lesser greater proportion being paid within the limits of a State. geographical of the also it

The Continental make Congress proceedings that uniform clear the words United States,” throughout “ which were afterwards inserted the Constitution of the United and to its been used, had, prior adoption, frequently to a as with reference and geographical uniformity always purely “ to with expression, operate generally through- synonymous situation so out the United States.” foregoing thoroughly Continental that all Congress proceedings permeated mere statement. We rest content we well th.eir might on the a few references make however, subject. shall, was not then intrinsic conceived is uniformity The view a Mr. Wilson sub- proposition remarks by well shown by on March 18, 1783, him to the Continental Congress mitted and lay Ell. Deb. empowered impose (5 “ 67,) hundred on all dollar acres located a tax of one of a per quarter within of the He said, lands each States.” speak- surveyed “ that it was more moderate than had tax, proposed ing could Revolution, been before supposed paid of their would price liberty, pay, people grudge to their what was oppressors.” formerly paid author- a resolution was 1781,- As proposed early February, which resolu- certain taxes and to levy izing Congress shall the same articles bear tion contained the proviso, without States said the same throughout impost 1 lb. exemption.” p. com- failed of this resolution report

Though passage, form to on the same day, mittee of the whole was agreed v. MOORE. Opinion cf the Court. the several States to levy recommended

of a resolution cent States duty per upon imports, the United use of 5 cent all and duty per prizes with certain exceptions, some of 1782, however, December, late as As goods. prize *46 5 Ell. this resolution. with to had failed comply the States 13. Deb. a resolution was Ib. 1783, 31,) proposed 25, (5 On January “ effort their make every power would that Congress

declaring and substantial States, general the from to obtain, respective debt of the whole the of funding funds object adequate was stricken . The word “general” . . States;” United as that considered of implying because being out, susceptible be embraced. should the States of taxation within every object that the word to remove to order any impression That is say, ” “ all on articles, to the levy obligation general might imply so as was resolution changed previous phraseology word to have significance, merely geographical to cause of taxation was assessed, that whatever subject to viz., require other or, be taxed State, should every same should through that words, operate generally a new resolution later, States. Two the United days having out it to be the of introduced opinion Congress been declaring to collected be be established, funds should by Congress, general was and the (lb. proposition the same objection repeated, 34,) “ as to read establishment amended so was permanent to the United funds operate generally throughout adequate as to should whether There controversy States.” being Congress record the to collect the the debates taxes, (lb. be allowed 34,) proceedings: following “ motion Mr. the whole was Madison, On proposition as follows: modelled, new ‘“ the establishment of it is That opinion Congress funds, throughout to adequate operate generally permanent for States, doing complete the United necessary indispensably for the creditors of the States, restoring United public justice for war.’ for the future credit, exigencies providing ’ ‘ “ words to be collected under Congress authority left to be added afterwards.” were, separate question, vol. clxxviii —7 TERM,

Opinion oí the Court. on Madison, after the demerits commenting Mr. plans his remarks the fol- to, referred with prefaced subsequent just “.It remains examine the of a (lb. 36): merits p. lowing pian revenue throughout United under operating States, general Congress.” superintendence Deb. On March Ell. (5 a vote 61), was taken upon first three Shall being: any taxes, questions, operate recommended generally throughout by Congress, other than duties commerce?” The matter foreign culmi- 18, 1783, nated on nine resolution April adoption to the several States that States, recommending the use vested levy, United.States, as well as ad certain im- specific valorem, upon goods into the States island ported foreign port, planta- Ell. tion. Deb. (1 93.) submitted

In address which the resolution an to the States it (lb. observed 97): fund render this “To as possible, and, at productive *47 to narrow for time, the room collusions and it same has frauds, to been an recommend a lib- plan judged improvement eral on such articles are most as of a tax duty ac- susceptible are of to most their equal general cording quantity, all other as articles, heretofore consumption; leaving proposed, value.” to their to be taxed according “ to It also in the address was stated this essential bring use tax on into ... resource (a concerted uni- imposts) ” “ that was ; cannot necessary uniformity be formity n so channel as concerted properly Con- through any through gress.” “ it is that the uniform Thus apparent expression throughout ” was at States that time considered as United purely geo- “ (cid:127) as with the synonymous graphical, being expression general United that no States,” operation throughout thought to intrinsic restricting obtained, since Congress uniformity recommended in conflict were with such absolutely powers theory.

The-reasons advanced who those the various reso- by opposed to which we have if are, lutions referred more deci- anything, MOORE.

Opinion of tlie Court. have than are the matters to which we called attention. sive Those reasons predicated upon inequality among arise to from States which granting might if a and excises. That is, to duties, imposts particu- lay on the various States was levied lar article throughout generally of that article as a an excise duty, might greater quantity it was asserted the States, one State than other be found State would because the former burden would pay unequal form of well tax. This objection greater proportion and Mr. Lee illustrated what was said Mr. Rutledge to duties or excises, to lay against grant power Congress ¥e States. United generally throughout quote operate S Ell. Deb. follows: p. £ Mr. to the term implying Rutledge objected generally,’ it une render the tax which would uniformity degree tax, He had a land view, according particularly, qual. ? See as had been note, proposed (quantity p. 37,)

quality, of finance. the office ‘

££ He Mr. Lee seconded the to the term opposition general.’ uniform that the States would consent to a contended never it because would tax, unequal.” Mr. who “that those Rutledge

Again (I,b-.P-37) complained so of a strenuously urged necessity competency general all the States at the same revenue, United operating throughout declined from which such time, specifying' any general objects could be drawn.” And the was a revenue same reason urged the United authority refusing lay imposts throughout we shall as is shown to which made, objections Thus, salt, now refer. respect imported “ on that it would States bear on the eastern injuriously argued of salt consumed in and' that besides it account the fisheries, *48 to be to would the national interest injurious adding by of fish.” 5 El. cost Deb. 61. Rhode Island So, also, protested , recommended to duties against grant power impose on to, the resolution of referred 18, 1783, April previously “ in its that the would ground unequal proposed duty States, hardest the most commercial operation, bearing TERM, and so would hard that State which press peculiarly draws its chief from commerce.” El. Deb. 101. And the support nature of this caused it to come 'to objection that in the pass discussions the claim that it subsequent Congress, was essen- tial to confer to upon Congress duties, authority lay imposts and excisesto be uniform the United became throughout States, associated in the discussion with the asserted necessity should have the to establish Congress uniform regula- tions commerce to the discrimination prevent from resulting duties, laying excises imposts States. respective 1 lb. 112. The association of the two evolved their subjects natural relation is well shown a resolution of Mr. Madison, introduced in the house of Yirginia delegates (lb. Ill,) “ wherein it was that the from the proposed State of delegates should be Yirginia instructed to a recom- propose Congress mendation to the States to authorize that Union, to assembly their regulate trade,” under qualifications principles stated in the following paragraphs: “ 1st. That the United States in assembled be au- thorized to vessels nation prohibit belonging any from foreign or to thereof, entering any ports duties on impose any such vesselsand their cargoes may judged necessary; all such and duties to be prohibitions throughout uniform United latter be carried into proceeds of the State within which shall accrue. treasury they “ 2d. That no State be at duties on liberty impose any wTaresor land merchandise, goods, imported, by water, State, other any may altogether prohibit importa tion from State of any particular species description wares or of which the goods, merchandise, is at the importation same time from all other whatsoever.” prohibited places It will be noticed that uniform the words throughout ” United States are the same which were subsequently adopted in the clause of the Constitution under and that consideration, the term in the resolution of Mr. Madison, uniformity, ap- but to re- plied only regulations prohibitions external specting which were to be commerce, the same designed all over the Union. *49 MOORE. i>.

Opinion of tie Court. was not of Mr. Madison adopted, resolution the Though commissioners to of Annapolis 'Virginia led to the sending by the result of which States, the other meet commissioners convention the Federal was meeting ob- convention, same the proceedings

Considering to the made as we have which previously servation» pertinent con- that, viz., despite struggles Congress, Continental of the Constitu- the final adoption which environed troversies inor debates, any found word is any not a tion, single documents cotemporaneous or historical of the proceedings Constitution, concurrent adoption made was ever intimation suggestion slightest give from the to tax was considered point power grant The the individual. struggles its view of operation were transferred in the Continental Congress were flagrant of taxa- undue The proportion the convention. question if direct taxes one or more States fall tion which might of direct taxes, was solved laid principle apportionment which were and excises, only subjected duties, imposts, the United these of uniformity throughout requirement an at that time as we have shown, words, having acquired meaning. unquestioned salient into minute the mention a few detail,

"Without going will serve to show how the result of the convention particulars duties, as to the uniformity together provisions brought and the re- and excises States United throughout imposts Con- commercial striction against discriminating regulations circumstances had been drawn the force of just they gress, their solution' in and how Continental together Congress, with the resolution in accord Constitution substantially house of Madison, of Mr. introduced into the delegates, Virginia to which we have referred. to the con-

The draft of a Federal submitted Constitution, Mr. in the first and second vention par- Pinckney, provided as follows Ell. Deb. (5 agraphs 130): shall have Art. VI. The United States legislature and excises; and collect taxes, imposts lay TERM, 1899.

'Opinion of the Court. “ To commerce with all nations and regulate sev- among eral States;

“ of direct taxation shall be proportion regulated by whole-number of inhabitants -whichnum- ; *50 every description — ber shall, within after years the first meeting legisla- — ture, within the term of in be taken after, every year to manner be prescribed by legislature.

“ , No tax shall laid be on articles the States; exported nor but in tax, capitation to the census before di- proportion rected.”

No other was made provision taxation. respecting The of Mr. plan New Paterson, addi- Jersey, provided, tion to the vested in powers the Articles of Con- Congress by “ federation, (p. 191,) should be authorized to Congress pass acts for a revenue, on raising duties all by levying duty and merchandise goods or manufacture, foreign growth into imported the United any part States; by stamps vellum or paper, on all letters and parchment, by postage packages office—to be passing through post general applied to such Federal shall deem purposes they proper expe- dient to; make rules and for the collection regulations thereof; and the same from time to time to alter and such amend, manner as think shall to acts for the they proper; pass regula- tion of trade and as well with nations as commerce, foreign each other.” another section of the

By Paterson plan, provided whenever be States requisitions upon should necessary, they should be made the rule of numbers and not value as under land, was to Confederation; and be “ ” authorized to devise and acts pass directing authorizing the collection of It-is when not with. requisitions complied thus seen that both of the referred to made no plans provision for of taxation uniformity the sense contended of the tax now opponents under The committee consideration. in the first detail, section of draft of a article of their YII constitution, proposed the two clauses of reported plan ” Mr. first Pinckney the word quoted, foreign substituting

KNOWLTONv. MOORE. Í03 “all” for the word before the word “nations.” .5 Ell. Deb.

On “ occurred 25, 1787, August following (lb. 478): anti Mr. L. Martin Mr. Carroll their expressed apprehen- of their sions, apprehensions constituents, probable that, trade, under the regulating general legislature favor the vessels ports might requiring to to or from other States enter and clear destined thereat, to to or bound enter and Baltimore, vessels clear at belonging moved the etc. Norfolk, They following proposition: “ ‘ of the United States shall not vessels legislature oblige citizens or to thereof, enter or foreigners, belonging pay other than that to duties or State imposts any they out in other to clear than the State in bound, any may be laden on their nor board; shall may cargoes any vessel on immunity granted privilege entering duties or in one out, or State paying imposts clearing prefer- ” (mother.’ ence *51 Mr. the same On General day McHenry sub- Pinckney was referred nern. mitted con. (which to a com- proposition to the establishment new in the relating mittee) ports States or for the collection duties imposts, concluded as fol- lows 479): (p. “ All duties, excises, or imposts prohibitions restraints, the of the laid or made United by legislature States, shall be the United throughout States.” equal uniform of the The fourth section seventh article of the con- proposed stitution committee on reported by on detail, August 6, read follows (p. 379): “. tax or shall be laid 4. duty Sec. No on legislature nor on State; articles any or im- exported migration as the of such several States shall think portation persons proper nor shall such admit; migration importation pro- hibited.” whom

The committee to these were referred propositions in made a eifect report August both embodying proposi- in one as follows (lb. tions paragraph, 483): “ That there after the fourth inserted, clause of the seventh TERM, ‘ section, nor shall of commerce or revenue any regulation give oneState over those preference ports another, oblige bound to or from vessels State to enter, clear or duties, pay and all another; duties, laid tonnage excises, imposts ” United, shall he legislature, States.'1 uniform, throughout It will be noticed that the committee recommended, not merely “ between preferences should be forbidden ports by any but also commerce,” regulation such should preferences “ not be made of revenue.” by any regulation This, obviously, rendered unnecessary include, latter part “ clause, or restraints,” as Mr. prohibitions proposed McHenry and General The substantial effect of the first clause Pinckney. of the was to that all of com- paragraph require regulations merce or revenue commerce affecting through ports should be States the same in all ports. follows

It from the collocation the two clauses that the as to of commerce between prohibition preferences regulations and the as to duties, excises, ports uniformity imposts though couched had different the same absolutely language, signifi- ” cance. sense which the word uniform was used is shown fact that whilst committee, adopting measure the of Mr. and General large proposition McHenry all “that excises, Pinckney, imposts, prohibitions . shall restraints . . be uniform and equal throughout out United struck States,” words “and Undoubt- equal.” this was done that taxes should edly prevent implication an have effect each As have State. we seen, equal pith the Confederation was that controversy even, during the same same or the same excise although impost was laid all over the United it might operate unequally reason distribution or existence of the article unequal taxed States. among respective *52 1797,

On of the committee acted 31, was August report as follows Ell. Deb. The “Nor shall (5 502): provision, commerce revenue any regulation preference give of one over State those of nem. was con. another,” ports adopted “ discussion the clause, After vessels bound to from oblige v. MOORE.

Opinion tlie Court. in duties was another,” clear enter, agreed State pay at 503 : the debates to. page Quoting ‘ n Theword out struck nem.eon., compre- ‘tonnage’ ‘ hended duties.’ “ and all duties, on the clause On the report question —‘ shall be uniform laid and excises, legislature, imposts to nem. States ’—it was conP the United agreed throughout In a is said: foot-note, “ and South Carolina In the New printed journal, Hampshire entered the negative.” to whom the committee res-

On 4, 1787, sundry September referred on 31, recommended, had been olutions, etc., August addition and alteration to the re- others, following among before the convention 506 to 507): (pp. port “ clause of article section to read as 7, 1, 1. The first follows: ‘ and collect shall have taxes, duties, lay legislature power the debts and com- excises, pay provide imposts welfare of the mon defence United States.’ general “ At the end the second clause of article section ” ‘and with the Indian tribes.’ add, The committee on 12, 1787, a style, September reported Constitution, con- (p. 535,) plan foregoing provision taxes, etc., today section 8 ferring authority being designated of article 1. the words 14, 1783, On But all-such im- September duties, and excises shall be uniform the United throughout States,” posts in their had been associated with and which, formed adoption but a clause favor of the part forbidding preference of one State over the of another State—-in other words, port port of another shifted, had been clause—were unanimous part from that and were annexed to the vote, paragraph, provisions to tax. granting it came to as to

Thus, pass although provisions pre- and that ference between ports regarding uniformity and excises were one one in their imposts purpose, adoption, became the Constitution for only they separated arranging now The first stands the Constitution style. purpose clause of section as a of the sixth and the article 1, part *53 TERM,

Opinion of the Court. of the first clause of other is a section 8 of article 1. part By then of an the result of the analysis history adoption it Constitution becomes that the words “uniform plain the United States” do not an intrinsic but throughout signify a And it also results that the uniformity. simply geographical to which at assertion we the outset that the decision referred, cases, in the Head Money the word uniform must holding in be sense, not be- interpreted geographical authoritative, case in cause that involved the reality solely clause the Con- stitution between shown to be forbidding preferences ports, since the unsound, clause of the and preference Constitution clause in were, effect, the Constitu- uniformity framing treated, tion, their as one and the same respected operation, and embodied the same thing, conception.

We add those who the ratification of the Con- opposed stitution understood that clearly clause as to uniformity but a taxation and imported made geographical- uniformity, a distinct that fact Thus ground complaint. report made to legislature Luther attor- Maryland by Martin, of the State, ney detailing commenting general of 1787, convention of which convention Mr. proceedings course of comments Martin was the tax delegate, the Constitution Mr. Martin said clause of lb. (1 p. 369): there is a that all ex- provision imposts Though to he is, uniform—that laid to the cises shall same amount on articles each this will not the same Con- yet prevent State— init their cause them fall gress having very much heavier on some States than on others, be- unequally duties be.laid articles but or not cause these little at all may used in other absolute some the use necessity in which the first would others; case, and consumption pay little or no the revenue while the therefrom, whole arising part the whole of it would last, wit, the nearly paid by which use and consume the articles on which States imposts laid.” excises are we are disposed next

Having question uniformity, consider certain contentions which relate to that brought It is that even it be conceded that argued although subject.

KNOWLTONv. MOOEE. the Constitution is uniformity only required geograph- ical one, law does fulfill the re- question of even quirements since does not geographical uniformity, to the .District of think Columbia. We this contention apply is without merit. *54 is the fact that the statute proposition predicated upon to the tax

purports lay distributive shares legacies after the act, of this “passing, any passage person pos- of sessed such or either will intestate laws property, ” of or State any Territory; provides receipt tax will entitle an to credit to the administrator, etc., amount “ to made the collector tribunal payment which, by any the laws of or be, State is, Territory, may empowered to decide and settle the accounts of executors and adminis- trators.” it is

This, does not embrace District Columbia. asserted, Without to determine whether the con- necessary attempting struction of the statute would inclusion the Dis- require trict Columbia terms, within its aside from any special pro- vision we think the of sec- bearing upon question, provisions tion 31 of the act makes the untenable. section That objection as follows Stat. provides (30 466): “ Sec. 31. That all administrative, special stamp provisions of law, the laws in relation the assessment of to including taxes, not heretofore made are specifically hereby repealed, applicable to this act.”

.The result is into the law under re- provision carry view the section of the Revised provisions Statutes, to internal revenue is as relating laws It follows: generally. ‘ 3140. The word in this be con- State,’ title, when used shall strued to include' the Territories and the District Columbia, such where construction its is out carry necessary provisions.” It further asserted the tax does fulfill re yet for the rea quirements following geographical uniformity, son : As the rate of taxation primary' depends upon degree want of a deceased relationship person, relationship that it with cannot argued uniformity, operate geographical inasmuch laws differ every testamentary intestacy may TERM, 1899. that the same want It is certain degree

State. relationship wherever is levied on deceased, existing, of relationship States. The tax is United at same rate throughout the fact States, United hence uniform despite throughout as to the the States obtain conditions that different among may in sub which the tax is levied. The proposition objects upon taxed stance assumes that objects imposts in uniform and conditions be found excises must quantities tax levied on them will otherwise the the respective what the But not be uniform the United States. throughout of a tax the rule is the commands imposition Constitution in order to such a not that uniformity, levy geographical which exist the sev must be selected uniformly objects the contention was Indeed, substantially eral States. disposed referred of in Tax 5 Wall. cases, the License previously had the as the States that, to. It was there several urged therefore traffic, on of the to forbid the carrying right liquor it would because traffic, had no to license such It held that of the State. interfere the authority *55 did that it not interfere the license was validly imposed, the because traffic, of the States to the liquor power prevent forbidden the license would in a. where such1traffic was State traffic was al in States where such be but the inoperative; The how license be effective. the would lowed, argument, we the review which answered is ever, fully additionally “ uni the and expression have made of meaning origin it From that States.” review form the United ap throughout which the now that the proposition pears very objection in the Continental advanced must rest was Congress urged and excises uniform duties, the reason the imposts why levy This be authorized. should-not the United States throughout the and is shown of Mr. suggestion the Rutledge objection of Rhode Is the of Mr. Lee. It is further shown by protest on salt should not land, and the reasons advanced why duty not if it were be But it that only levied. was seen required, should be uniform and excises through that the duties, imposts should in them the that States, objects out United imposing in several the in the be selected existing equal quantity v. MOORE. tó would be a excises levy imposts grant power In framed failure. the convention which the Constitution the was used without as we have success,and, seen, same argument “ which out of words and the the the only ground upon striking the the after word clause uniform,” adoption equal” found in as now can be Constitution, reasonably explained, it done is that was to that the duties, prevent implication which be excises to uniform throughout imposts were to United States placed upon rights equally existing States. To now several relied on proposition adopt to would the action then, convention, virtually, nullify and would to relegate taxing power impo condition which it tent was the Confederation. during it is that the rate of the stat feature Lastly, urged progressive so ute is fundamental repugnant principles equality that law should be held to be even void, it justice although no limitation the Constitution. With transgresses express out as to the existence of a intimating any opinion right courts exercise the is it is thus invoked, appar that the ent the tax without argument enormity It of in merit. v. Illinois Trust & Sav disposed Magoun U. Bank, S. ings

The review have we made exhibits fact taxes with reference to the whom imposed ability person upon the burden is to bear the same have been levied from the placed foundation of the some government. So, also, authoritative and a thinkers, number of economic contend writers, pro- is more than a one. In gressive just equal proportional absence constitutional limitation, it question'whether is or is not legislative conse- judicial. grave which is asserted must if arise future quences right tax be levy involves its progressive ultimate recognized *56 the mere assertion that and free aspect representative govern- a ment is and failure, that abuses are grossest power foreshadowed unless a the courts func- usurp purely legislative If a case tion. should ever where an and arise, con- arbitrary exaction is fiscatory a bearing imposed guise progressive other form of it will be' tax, time consider enough TERM, Hablan,

Mr. Justice dissenting. can afford whether judicial remedy by applying fundamental for the inherent principles of the protection there be no individual, even though in the express authority to do so. That the law which we Constitution have construed no the contention affords that the ground imposed is obvious. confiscatory, arbitrary follows from that the foregoing opinion court below

.It all and that it relief, erred should have held denying much recover so entitled tax as resulted from plaintiff ten thousand exceeding and from legacies dollars, taxing rate the tax with reference to whole amount of increasing of the from which estate deceased legacies For shares derived. these distributive reasons remanded, belowmust bereversed and the case be jxidgment that with instructions proceedings had according fxurther m with to law conformity opmion,.and it is so ordered. from so much dissented the opinion Brewer

Mr. Justice rate tax can be as holds progressive validly imposed. he concurred. In other respects no took part decision. Peckham

Mr. Justice whom concurred Mr. Mr. Justice Mc- Harlan, Justice Kenna, dissenting. I concur construction the court placed by

While that all of the Constitution clause declaring imposts be “uniform excises shall United throughout States,” opinion I dissent part construing twenty- sections of the Revenue Act. and thirtieth In ninth my judg- whether the tax ment, presented shall question be determined with not be or shall reference to imposed amount out of whole personal property legacies If the distributive shares arise. value whole personal or trust an held in administrator, executor charge ten then dollars, exceeds thousand or trustee every part share, distributive the share of except constituting *57 HIGH COYNE. v. Ill Case. Statement at taxed rate wife, husband or stated in progressive I not think act can do

act otherwise inter- Congress. the intent of without defeating Congress. preted the act is not indicated, as I have Construed liable constitutional objection.

HIGH v. COYNE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 6, 7, 1899.) Argued No. 225 December 5, May 14, 1900. DecidedDecided only assignments The of error case raised the constitutionality sought recovered, just the taxes to be has adversely been decided plaintiffs Moore, ante, v. error in nothing Knowlton there is in the record to enable the mistakingly court to see that the statute was collector; interpretation construed but as the of the statute which adopted administering was enforced the officers the law was the justice Moore, one held be unsound require Knowlton ends of right may to resist so much of the tax as have arisen from the interpretation wrong statute should not be foreclosed the de- cree of this court. who are complainants, here, filed appellants their bill to the executrix of their father’s estate from

enjoin paying leg- taxes levied sections 29 and 30 of acy War Revenue Act 1898. The collector of internal revenue was also made a and an was defendant, asked injunction him to against prevent his to collect the collecting attempting taxes question, which, asserted, he was about to enforce the ex- against who, it was ecutrix, would averred, unless the writ of pay she was forbidden to do so. As injunction heirs of their father and as beneficiaries of his estate, asserted complainants they entitled to the executrix from prevent making payment taxes were unconstitutional and hence void. The reasons relied on to show that the law was taxing the Con- repugnant stitution of the United States were that the taxes were direct were not uniform apportioned, and were levied on ob-