858 OLEOMAKGAKINE. 



Cooley on Taxation (p. 5) says: 



Everything to which the legislative power extends may be the subject of taxation, 

 whether it be person or property, or possession, franchise or privilege, or occupation 

 or right. Nothing but express constitutional limitation upon legislative authority 

 can exclude anything to which the authority extends from the grasp of the tax- 

 ing power if the legislature in its discretion shall at any time select it for revenue 

 purposes. 



And not only is the power unlimited in its reach as to subjects, but in its very 

 nature it acknowledges no limit, and may be carried to any extent which the Gov- 

 ernment may find expedient. It may, therefore, be employed again and again upon 

 the same subjects, even to the extent of exhaustion and destruction, and may thus 

 become in its exercise a power to destroy. If the power be threatened with abuse, 

 security must be found in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax 

 to the constituency who are to pay it. The judiciary can not afford redress against 

 oppressive taxation, so long as the legislature in imposing it shall keep within the 

 limits of legislative authority and violates no express provision of the Constitution. 

 The necessity for imposing it addresses itself to the legislative discretion, and it is or 

 may be an urgent necessity which will admit of no property or other conflicting 

 right in the citizen while it remains unsatisfied. 



The Supreme Court, in McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. , 428), says: 



It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential 

 to the very existence of the Government and may be legitimately exercised to the 

 utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The people give to 

 their Government the right of taxing themselves and their property; and as the 

 exigencies of the Government can not be limited, they prescribe no limits to the 

 exercise of this right, resting confidently on the interest of the legislator and on the 

 influence of the constituents over their representatives to guard them against its 

 abuse. 



In 8 Wall., 548, is reported the opinion in the Veazie bank case 

 wherein the court was appealed to in an effort to have the 10 per cent 

 tax on State bank circulation set aside. In this case the court's rea- 

 soning was: 



It is insisted, however, that the tax in the case before us is excessive, and so 

 excessive as to indicate a purpose to destroy the franchise of the bank, and it is 

 therefore beyond the constitutional power of Congress. 



The first answer to this is that the judiciary can not prescribe to the legislative 

 departments of the Government limitations upon its acknowledged powers. The 

 power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons, but the responsibility of 

 the legislature is not to the courts, but to the people by whom its members are elected. 

 So if a particular tax bears heavily upon a corporation, or a class of corporations, it 

 can not for that reason only be pronounced contrary to the Constitution. 



In 3 Gill., 28, is quoted the following: 



* * * w e are no t driven to the perplexing inquiry so unfit for the judicial 

 department, What degree of taxation is the legitimate use and what degree may 

 amount to abuse of power? 



And further along, on page 28: 



On the contrary, when the Supreme Court has been required to speak upon this 

 subject they have discountenanced the notion of implied restriction. 



And from 9 Wall., 41 to 45: 



It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given 

 in the Constitution with only one exception and with only two qualifications. Con- 

 gress can not tax exports and it must impose direct taxes by rule of uniformity. 

 Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at 

 discretion. 



We reiterate, the 10-cent tax is only directed at fraud and that 

 quality of an article already condemned by the people, who, through 

 their State legislatures, have made every possible effort to suppress it. 

 And it seems to us that if there ever was an excuse for the use of the 



