APPENDIX. HYLTON v. THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1796. [3 Dallas's Reports, 171 - 184.] CONGRESS, in 1794, laid a duty upon "carriages for the con- . veyance of persons." Hylton, the plaintiff, kept, after the passage of the law laying the above named duty, a number of chariots for his own use, but refused to pay duty on them, saying the law was unconstitutional. He was sued by the United States, in the circuit court for the district of Virginia, and the facts were submitted. The court being equally divided, the defendant confessed judgment, and took out his writ of error to the supreme court. The sole question was as to the constitutionality of the law taxing carriages, and the whole ground of argument gone over by the judges in their opinions, delivered seriatim, as follows: CHASE, J. By the case stated, only one question is submitted to the opinion of this court: Whether the law of congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled "An Act to lay Duties. upon Carriages for the Conveyance of Persons," is unconstitutional and void? The principles laid down, to prove the above law void, are these That a tax on carriages is a direct tax, and, therefore, by the constitution, must be laid according to the census directed by the constitution to be taken, to ascertain the number of representatives from each state; and that the tax in question, on carriages, is not laid by that rule of apportionment, but by the rule of uniformity, prescribed by the constitution in the case of duties, imposts, and excises; and a tax on carriages is not within either of those descriptions. By the second section of the first article of the constitution it is provided that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to their numbers, to be determined by the rule prescribed. By the ninth section of the same article it is further provided that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration before directed. By the eighth section of the same article it was declared that congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. As it was incumbent on the plaintiff's counsel in error, so they took great pains, to prove that the tax on carriages was a direct tax; but they did not satisfy my mind. I think, at least, it may be doubted; and if I only doubted, I should affirm the judgment of the circuit court. The deliberate decision of the national legislature (who did not consider a tax on carriages a direct tax, but thought it was within the description of a duty) would determine me, if the case was doubtful, to receive the construction of the legislature; but I am inclined to think that a tax on carriages is not a direct tax, within the letter or meaning of the constitution. The great object of the constitution was to give congress a power to lay taxes adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely, the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts, or excises; and the rule of apportionment according to the census, when they laid any direct tax. If there are any other species of taxes that are not direct, and not included within the words "duties, imposts, or excises," they may be laid by the rule of uniformity, or not, as congress shall think proper and reasonable. If the framers of the constitution did not contemplate other taxes than direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises, there is great inaccuracy in their language. If these four species of taxes were all that were meditated, the general power to lay taxes was unnecessary. If it was intended that congress should have authority to lay only one of the four above enumerated, to wit, direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and the other three by the rule of uniformity, the expressions would have run thus: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises; the first shall be laid according to the census; and the three last shall be uniform throughout the United States." The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other,) and also duties, imposts, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. Duties, imposts, and excises were enumerated, after the general term "taxes," only for the purpose of declaring that they were to be laid by the rule of uniformity. I consider the constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to congress to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment; three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises, by the first rule, and capitation or other direct taxes, by the second rule. I believe some taxes may be both direct and indirect at the same time. If so, would congress be prohibited from laying such a tax, because it is partly a direct tax? The constitution evidently contemplated no taxes as direct taxes, but only such as congress could lay in proportion to the census. The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in such cases where it can reasonably apply; and the subject taxed must ever determine the application of the rule. |