This species of tax has again and again been imposed, although only temporarily, by the National Government.  It was first imposed by the act of July 6, 1797, when the makers of the Constitution were alive and at the head of affairs.  It was a graduated tax; though small in amount, the rate was increased with the amount left to any individual, exceptions being made in the case of certain close kin.  A similar tax was again imposed by the act of July 1, 1862; a minimum sum of one thousand dollars in personal property being excepted from taxation, the tax then becoming progressive according to the remoteness of kin.  The war-revenue act of June 13, 1898, provided for an inheritance tax on any sum exceeding the value of ten thousand dollars, the rate of the tax increasing both in accordance with the amounts left and in accordance with the legatee’s remoteness of kin.  The Supreme Court has held that the succession tax imposed at the time of the Civil War was not a direct tax but an impost or excise which was both constitutional and valid.  More recently the Court, in an opinion delivered by Mr. Justice White, which contained an exceedingly able and elaborate discussion of the powers of the Congress to impose death duties, sustained the constitutionality of the inheritance-tax feature of the war-revenue act of 1898.

In its incidents, and apart from the main purpose of raising revenue, an income tax stands on an entirely different footing from an inheritance tax; because it involves no question of the perpetuation of fortunes swollen to an unhealthy size.  The question is in its essence a question of the proper adjustment of burdens to benefits.  As the law now stands it is undoubtedly difficult to devise a national income tax which shall be constitutional.  But whether it is absolutely impossible is another question; and if possible it is most certainly desirable.  The first purely income-tax law was past by the Congress in 1861, but the most important law dealing with the subject was that of 1894.  This the court held to be unconstitutional.

The question is undoubtedly very intricate, delicate, and troublesome.  The decision of the court was only reached by one majority.  It is the law of the land, and of course is accepted as such and loyally obeyed by all good citizens.  Nevertheless, the hesitation evidently felt by the court as a whole in coming to a conclusion, when considered together with the previous decisions on the subject, may perhaps indicate the possibility of devising a constitutional income-tax law which shall substantially accomplish the results aimed at.  The difficulty of amending the Constitution is so great that only real necessity can justify a resort thereto.  Every effort should be made in dealing with this subject, as with the subject of the proper control by the National Government over the use of corporate wealth in interstate business, to devise legislation which without such action shall attain the desired end; but if this fails, there will ultimately be no alternative to a constitutional amendment.