Hylton v. United States (1796)

Chase, _ Juft ice. By the cafe ftated, only one queftion is fubmitted to the opinion of this court;—whether.the law of Congrefs, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled, “ An a& to lay duties upon carriages, for the conveyance of perfons,” is uncqnjlitutional and void? The principles laid down, to prove the above law void, are thefe : That a tax on carriages, is a direSt tax, and, therefore, bylhe conftitution, rnuftbe laid according to the cenfus, dirc-dft- *173 e'd by the conftitution to be taken, to afcertain the number of Reprefentatives from each State : And that the tax in queftion, on carriages, is not laid by that rule of apportionment, but by the rule of uniformity, prefcribed by the conftitution, in the cafe of duties, impojls, and excifes ; and a tax on carriages, is not within either of thofe defcriptions- By the 2d. fedtion of the ift. article of the Conftitution, it is provided, that dire Ip taxes íKall be apportioned among the fe-veral States, according to their numbers, to be determined by the rule prefcribed. -By the 9th fedtion of the fame article, it is furthey provided, That no capitation, or other diredi tax, ihall be laid, unlefs in proportion to the cenfus, or enumeration, before directed. By the 8th feci ion of the fame article, it was declared, that Congrefs ihall have power .to .lay and collect taxes, duties, im-pojls, and excifes', but all duties, impojls, .and excifes, Ihall be uniform throughout the United States. As it was incumbent on the Plaintiff’s Council in Error,' fo they took great pains to prove, that the tax on carriages was a diredl úx; but they did not fatisfy my mind. I think, at leaft, it may be doubted', and if I only doubted, I ihould affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. The deliberate decifion of the National Legiilature, (who did not confidera tax on car- ' riages a diredl tax, but thought it was within the defcription of a 'duty) would determine me, if the cafe was doubtful, to receive the conftrudtion of the Legiilature : But I am inclined to think, that a tax on carriages is not- a diredi tax, within the letter, or meaning, of the Conftitution. The"great objedt" of the Conftitution Was, to give Congrefs a power to lay taxes, adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to obferve two rules in itfipofing them, namely, the rule of uniforfnity, when they laid duties, impojls, or excifes; and the rule of apportionment, according to the cenfus, when they laid any diredi tax. If there are any other fpecies of taxes that are not diredl, and not included .within the words dutiesj impojls, or excifes, they maybe laid by the rule of uniformity, or not; as Congrefs ihal'l think proper and reafonable. If the framers, of the Conftitution did not contemplate other taxes than diredl taxes, and duties, impojls, and excifes, there "is great inaccuracy in their language.—If thefcfour fpecies of taxes were all that were meditated, the general power to lay taxes was unneceffary. If it was intended, that Congrefs ihould have authority to lay only one of the four above enumerated, to wit, diredl taxes, by the rule of apportionment, and the other- three by the rule of uniformity, the expreifions would have run thus : “ Congrefs ihall have power to lay and collect diredi taxes, and duties, im *174 p°fth and excifes j the firji ihall be laid according to the cen-fus j and the three left ihall be uniform throughout the United' States.” The power, in the 8th ietSion of the ift article, to la y and colledt taxes, included a power to lay direEi taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and alfo duties,' impojls, and excifes; and every other fpecies or kind, of tax whatfoever, and called by any other name. Duties, impofis, and excifes, were enumerated, after the general term taxes, only for the purpofe of declaring, that they were to be laid by the rule of uniformity. I coniider the Conilitution to Hand in this manner. A general power is given to Congrefs, to lay and colledt taxes, of every kind or nature, without any reftraint, except only on exports-, but two rules are prefcribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment : Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, impofts, and excifes by the firil rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the fecond rule. I believe fame taxes may be both direEi and indireEi at the' fame time. If fo, would Congrefs be prohibited from laying ing fuch a tax, becaufe it is partly a direEi tax ? The Conilitution evidently contemplated no taxes as direEi taxes, but only fuch as Congrefs could lay in proportion to the cenfus. The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in fuch cafes where it can reafonahly apply ; and the fukjeEi taxed, mull ever determine the application of the rule. e If it is propofed to tax any fpecific article by the rule of appor tionment, and it would evidently create great inequality and in-juilice, it is unreafonable to fay, that the Conilitution intended fuch tax ihould be laid by that rule. It appears to me, that a tax on carriages cannot be laid by the rule of apportionment, without very great inequality and injuf-tice. For example: Suppofe two States, equal in cenfus, to pays 80,000 dollars each, by a tax on carriages, of 8 dollars on every carriage -, and In- one State there are 100 carriages, and in the other 1000. The 'owners of carriages in one State, would pay ten times the tax of owners in the other. A. in one State, would pay for his carriage 8 dollars, but B. in the other ilate, would pay for his carriage, 80 dollars. It was argued, that a tax on carriages was a direEi tax, and might be laid according to the rule of apportionment, and (as. I underilood) in this manner : Congrefs, after determining on the grofs fum to be railed was to apportion it, according to the cenfus, and then lay it in one State on carriages, in another on harfes, in a third on tobacco, in a fourth on rice; and fo on.—• I admit that this mode might be adopted, to raife a certain fum in each State, according to the cenfus, but it would not be a tax on carriages, but on a number of fpecific articles ; and it' feems to me, that .it would be liable to the fame objection of *175 abufe and oppreffion, as a feleftion of any one article in all the States* I think, an annual tax on carriages for the conveyance of perfons, may be confidered as within the power granted to Congrefs to lay duties. The term duty, is the moil compre-henfive next to the generical term tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas of taxes, duties, impojls, excifes,• cuftoms, &V.) embraces taxes on itamps, tolls for paffage, &c. &c. and is not confined to taxes on importation only. It feems tome, that a tax on expence is an indirect tax ; and I think, an annual tax on a carriage for the conveyance of per-fons, is of that kind; becaufe a carriage is a confumeahle commodity, and fuch annual tax on it, is on the expence of the owner. . ' 1 am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the dircd taxes contemplated by the Conftitution, are only tivo, to wit, a capitation, or pell tax, jimply, without regard to property, profejf on, or any other c{rcumjiance\ anda tax on LAND.'—I doubt whether a tax, by a general af-fejfment of perfonal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax. As I do not think the tax on carriages is a dire Cl tax, it is - unneceflary, at this time, for me to determine, whether this court,, conjlitutipnally poflefies the power to declare an aft of Congrefs void, on the ground oí its being made contrary to, and in violation of, the Conílitution; but if the court have fuch power, I am free to declare, that I will never exercife it, hut in a very clear cafe. I am for affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court. Paterson, Jvflice. By the fecond feftion of the firft article of the Conílitution of the United States, it is ordained, that reprefentatives and direft taxes ihall be apportioned among ■the ilates, according to their refpeftive numbers, which ihall. be determined by adding to the whole number of free perfons, including thofe bound to fervice for a term of years, and including,Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other perfons. The eighth feftion of the faid article, .declares, that Con-grefs ihall have power to lay and colleft taxes, duties, impoits, •and excifes -, but all duties, impoits and excifes, ihall be uniform throughout the United States. The ninth feftion of the fame article provides, that no capitation or other direft tax ihall be Jajd, unlefs in proportion to the cenfus or enumeration before direfted to be taken. Congrefs palled a law on the 5th of June, 1^94.,entitled- “ An K aft laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of per- “ fons.-’ *176 Daniel Lawrence Hilton, on th.e 5th of June, 1794, and therefrom to the laft day of September next following, owned, pof-feffed, and kept one hundred and twenty-five chariots for the ' conveyance of perfons, b.ut exclufively for his own feparate ufe, and not to let out to hire, or for the conveyance of perfons for hire. The queftion is, whether a tax upon carriages be a diredt tax? If it be a diredt tax, it is unconftitutional, becaufe it has been laid purfuant to the„ruleof uniformity, and not to the rule • of apportionment. In behalf of the Plaintiff in error, it has been urged, that a tax on carriages does not come within the defeiption of á duty, impoft, or excife, and therefore is a direct tax. It has, on the other hand, been contended, that as a tax on .carriages is not a diredt tax ; it muft fall within one of the claffifications juft enumerated, and particularly muft be a duty or excife. The argument on both lides turns in a circle; it is not a duty, impoft, or excife, and therefore muft be a diredt tax; it is not tax, and therefore muft 'be a duty or excife. What is the natural and common, or technical and appropriate, meaning of the words, duty and. excife, it is not eafy to afeertaitj. They prefent no clear and precife idea to the mind. Different perfons will annex different figniiications to the terms. It was, however, obviouflv the intention of the framers of the Confti-tution, that Congrefs ihould poffefs full power over every fpecies of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is genérica!, and was made ufe of to veft in Congrefs plenary authority in all cafes of taxation. The general divifion of taxes is into diredt and indirect. Although the latter term is not to be found in the Conftitution, yet the former neceffarily implies it. Indiredt {lands oppoied to diredt. There may, perhaps, be an indiredt tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or impoits, or excifes; in fuch cafe it will be comprifed under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes, x. Diredt- taxes. 2. Duties, impofts, and -excifes. 3. All other claffes of an indiredt kind, and not-within any-of the claffifications enumerated under the preceding heads. The queftion occurs, how is fuch tax to be laid, uniformly or apportionately ? The rule of uniformity will apply, becaufe it is' an indiredt tax, and diredt taxes only .are to be apportioned. -What are diredt taxes within the meaning of th'e,Confti-> tution ? The Conftitution declares, that a capitation tax is a diredt tax ; and, both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a diredt tax. In this way, the terms diredt taxes, and capitation and other diredt tax, are fatisfied. It is not ne~ *177 ciliary to determine, whether ⅜ tax on the product of land be a direét of indirect tax. Perhaps, the immediate produdt of land, in its original and crude ftate, ought to be confidered as the land itfelf; it makes part of it; or die the proviiion made againft taxing exports would be eafily eluded. Land, independently of its produce, is of no value. When the produce is converted into a manufacture, it affumes a newfhaps; it.s nature is altefed ; its original ftate is changed; it becomes quit# another fubjeét, and will be differently confidered. Whether direét taxes, in the fenfe of the Conftitutiori, comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax, and tax on land, is a queftionable point. If Congrefs, for inftance, ihould .tax, in the aggregate or mafs, things that generally pervade all the ftates in the Union, then, perhaps, the rule of apportionment would be the moft proper, efpecially if an affeffment was to intervene. This appears by the praitice of forne of the ftates, to have been' confidered as a direét tax. Whether- it be fo unT der the Conftitution of .the United States, is a matter of fome difficulty; but-as it is not before the court, it would be improper to give any decifive opinion upon it. I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, 1 v/ill not fay, the only, objeéls,. that the' framers of the Conftitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land. Local confiderations, and the particular circum-ftances, and relative fituation of the ftates, naturally lead to this view of the fubjeél. The proviiion was made in favor of thedouthern States. They poffefíed a'large number of Haves; they had extenfive traéis of territory, thinly fettled, and not ve'ry próduélive. A majority of the ftates bad but few Haves, and feveral of- them a limited territory, well fettled, and in a high ftate of cultivation. The fouthern ftates, if no provifion had been introduced in the Conftitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other ftates. Congrefs in fuch cafe, might tax Haves, át diferetion or arbitrarily, and land in every part of the Union after the fame rate or meafure: fo much a head in’ the firft inftance, and fo much an acre in the fecond. To guard them againft impofition in thefe particulars, was the reafon of introducing the claufe in the Conftitution, which diréis-that reprefentatives and direél taxes íhall be ap portioned among the ftates, according to their refpeélive numbers. On the part of the Plaintiff in error, it has been contended, ■that the rule of apportionment is to be favored rather than the rule of uniformity; and, of courfe, that the inftrument is to receive fuch a conftruétion, as will extend the former and re-ftriél the latter. I am not of that opinion. The Conftitutiori has been confidered as an accommodating fyftem; it was the *178 effedl of mutual facrifices arid conceftions; it was the work of compromife. The rule of apportionment is of this nature; it is radically wrong; it cannot be fupported by any fclid reafohing. Why. íhould llaves, who are a fpecies of property, be reprefented more than any other property ? The rule, therefore, ought not to be extended.by conftrudlion. Again, numbers do not afford a juft eftimate or rule of wealth. . It is, indeed, a very uncertain and incompetent fign of opulence. There is another reafon agáinft the ex-teniion of the principle laid down in the Conftitution. The counfel on the part of the Plaintiff in error, have further urged, that an equal participation of the expenfe or burden by the feveral ftates in the Union, was the primary objedt,. which the framers of the- Conftitution had in view; and that this objedt will -be effedted by the principle of apportion-, ment, which is an operation upon ftates, and not on individuals ; for, each ftate will -be debited for the amount of its quota of the tax, and credited for its payments. This brings it to the old fyftem of requifitions. - An equal ruléis doubt-lefs the 'belt. But how is this to be applied to ftates or ts individuals? The latter are the objedts-of taxation, without reference to ftates,' except in the cafe of diredt taxes. - The fifcal power is exerted certainly, equally, and effedtually on individuals ; it.cannot be exerted on ftates. Theftfiftory of the United Netherlands, and of our own country, will evince the truth of this poiition. The government of the United States could not go bn under the confederation, becaufc Congrefs were obliged to proceed in the line of requifition. Congrefs could not, under the old confederation, raife money by taxes, be the public exigencies ever fo prefiing'and great. They had no coercive, authority—if they had, it muft have been ex-ercifsd againft the delinquent ftates, which would be ineffedlual, or terminate in a reparation. Requifitions were a dead letter,-unlefs the ftate legiilatures could be brought into adtion ; and when they were, the films railed were very difproportional. Unequal contributions or payments engendered difeontent,- and fomented ftate-jealoufy. Whenever it ihall be thought ne-ceftary or expedient, to lay a diredt tax on land, where the ob~ jedt.is one and the fame, it is tobe apprehended, thatit will be a- fund not much moré produdtive than that of requifition under the farmer government. Let us put the cafe. A given fum'is to-be rai fed from the landed property in the United :J>tates. • It it eafy to apportion this fum, or to aftign to each-ftate i,ts quota. .The Conftitution gives the rule. Suppofe the proportion of North Carolina to be eighty thoufand dollars! This fum is to be laid on the landed property in the -ftate, but by what rule, at)d by whom ?• Shall every aeré 'pay *179 the fame fum, without regard to its quality, value, fituation, or produdtivenefs ? This Would be manifeftly unjuft.. Do the laws of the different ftates-furnifh fufficient data for the purpofe of forming one common rule,-comprehending the quality,'fitu-ation, and value of the lands ? In fome of the flap s there has . been no land tax for feveral years, and where there has been, the mode of laying the tax is fo various, and-the diverfity in the land is fo great, that no common principle can be deduced, and carried into practice. Do the laws of each ftate furni/h data, from whence to extraét a rule, whofe operation ihall be equal and-, certain in the fame ftate ? Even this is doubtful. Befides, fub-divifions will be neceffary; the apportionment of the ftate, and perhaps of a particular part of the ftate, is again to be apportioned among counties, townfliip3, pariihes, or diftridts. If the lands be claffed, then a fpecific value muft be annexed to each clafs. , And there a queftion arifes, how 0lifer* are claflifications and affeffments to be made ? Annually, -triennially, feptennially ? The oftener they are made, the greater will be the expenfe; and the feldomer they are made,'the greater will be the inequality, and injuftice. In the procefs .of the operation a number of perfons will be neceffary to clafs," to valué, and affefs the land ; and after all the guards and provj-fions that can b¿ devifed, we muft ultimately rely upon the difcretion of the officers in the exercife of their functions, Tribunals of appeal muft alfa.be i.nftituted to hear and decide upon unjuft valuations, ór the affeffors will a