affirmed without fear of contradiction, that some artificial rule of apportionment of a fixed nature is indispensable to the public repose; and considering the peculiar situation of the American states, and especially of the slave and agricultural states, it is difficult to find any rule of greater equality or justice, than that, which the constitution has adopted. And it may be added, (what was indeed foreseen,) that direct taxes on land will not, from causes sufficiently apparent, be resorted to, except upon extraordinary occasions, to supply a pressing want.[1] The history of the government has abundantly established the correctness of the remark; for in a period of forty years three direct taxes only have been laid; and those only with reference to the state and operations of war.
§ 995. The constitution having, in another clause, declared, that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states within this Union according to their respective numbers," and congress having, in 1815,[2] laid a direct tax on the District of Columbia, (according to the rule of apportionment,) a question was made, whether congress had constitutionally a right to lay such a tax, the district not being one of the states; and it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court, that congress had such a right.[3] It was further held, that congress, in laying a direct tax upon the states, was not constitutionally bound to extend such tax to the district, or the territories of the United States; but, that it was a matter forPage:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol II).djvu/470
462
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
