PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. . 477 



Hylton case, " Land, independently of its produce, is of no value." 

 It scarcely needs argument to establish that anything which 

 affects every element that gives an article its value, in the eye 

 of the law, affects directly the article itself. In illustration of 

 this many decisions, mainly of the United States Supreme Court, 

 were cited, of which the followiug are examples : 



In Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, it was held by the 

 United States Court that a tax on the occupation of an importer 

 is the same as a tax on imports, and was therefore void. 



In Weston vs. Charleston, 2 Peters, it was held that a tax 

 upon the income of United States securities was a tax upon the 

 securities themselves, and equally inadmissible. 



In Almy vs. California, 24 Howard, it was held that a duty 

 on a bill of lading was the same thing as a duty on the article 

 which it represents. 



In Cook vs. Pennsylvania, 97 United States, it was held that a 

 tax upon the amount of sales of goods made by an auctioneer was 

 a tax upon the goods sold. 



In Railroad Company vs. Jackson, 7 Wallace, it was held that 

 a tax upon the interest payable upon bonds was a tax not upon 

 the debtor, but upon the security, the bonds. 



In Philadelphia Steamship Company vs. Pennsylvania, 122 

 United States, it was held that a tax upon the income received 

 from interstate commerce was a tax upon the commerce itself, 

 and equally unauthorized. 



"If a man seized of lands in fee by his deed granteth to 

 another the profit of those lands to have and to hold to him and 

 his heires, the whole land itself e doth passe ; for what is the land 

 hut the profits thereon 9 " (Coke upon Littleton, the accepted rule 

 of law in every court in English Christendom.) 



A devise of the interest or of the rents and profits is a devise 

 of the thing itself out of which that interest on those rents and 

 profits may issue (Patterson vs. Ellis, 11 Wendal). 



It seems clear, therefore, that the weight of judicial opinion 

 as expressed in the judgments of the highest courts, both in the 

 United States and England, was to the effect that the tax imposed 

 under the United States act of August, 1894, on the income from 

 the use, profits, and sales of land was a direct tax, and, not being 

 apportioned in accordance with a strict provision of the Federal 

 Constitution in respect to the levy and collection of said tax, was 

 necessarily unconstitutional and void.* 



* The following rejoinder by one of the counsel for the applicants (Mr. Choate) to a 

 portion of the argument made by the Attorney General (Mr. Olney), and before cited, is per- 

 tinent and instructive, as respects the much-vexed question as to the sittis of property for 

 the purpose of tax administration : 



" The Attorney General says, ' When a man has got the money in his pocket it is no 



