Opinion of the Court. lapse of time an erroneous conception as to the meaning of the Constitution had arisen, for the examples to which we have just referred are but types of many forms of taxation by way of duties, imposts and excises which were enacted without question from the very beginning, and have continued in an unbroken line to the present time, sanctioned by the founders of our institutions and approved in practical execution by all the illustrious men who have directed the public destinies of the nation. Excise taxes were largely used during the administration of President Washington, and again during and after the war of 1812. It may properly be said of these excises that none of them were uniform according to the principles now contended for, yet no constitutional question in this regard was ever raised about them. A partial list of some of the earlier acts is inserted in the margin. We do not cite from the later revenue acts, 1 Federal excises during the first generation after the Constitution. I. Washington's administration. March 3, 1791, ch. 15, §§ 14, 15, on distilled spirits; not uniform or proportionate to strength. No tax on country distilleries using home made materials. May 8, 1792, ch. 32, § 1, on distilled spirits; country distillers taxed differently from those in cities, towns and villages; § 11, no drawback on any quantity less than 100 gallons. June 5, 1794, ch. 45, § 1, on carriages. Contains some exemptions. Discussed in Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171. June 5, 1794, ch. 48, on licenses for making certain sales of wines or foreign distilled spirituous liquors. June 5, 1794, ch. 51, §§ 1, 2, on snuff and refined sugar; § 14, no drawback on any quantity less than $12 worth. Discussed in Pennington v. Coxe, 2 Cranch, 33. June 9, 1794, ch. 65, § 1, on auction sales; with exemption of judicial sales, sales of goods distrained or in insolvency; and of sales of produce of land, when sold on the land where produced, etc.; and of sales "of any farming utensils, stock or household furniture by persons removing from the place of their former residence, where the amount shall not exceed $200." March 3, 1795, ch. 43, § 1, on mortars and pestles, etc., in snuff mills; §8, no drawback on any exports of snuff less than 300 lbs. May 28, 1796, ch. 37, § 1, on carriages, with exemptions. II. Period of war of 1812. July 24, 1813, ch. 21, § 1, on refined sugar. July 24, 1813, ch. 24, § 1, on carriages, with exemptions. Opinion of the Court. because of the numerous and familiar instances of such legislation which abound therein. The necessities which gave birth to the Constitution, the controversies which preceded its formation, and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purpose of tracing to its source any particular provision of the Constitution, in order thereby to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 558. The paralysis which the Articles of Confederation produced upon the Continental Congress because of the want of power in that body to enforce necessary taxation to sustain the government needs no more than statement. And the proceedings of the Congress during the Confederation afford abundant evidence of the constant effort which was made to overcome this situation by attempts to obtain authority from the States for Congress to levy the taxes deemed by it essential, and thus relieve it from the embarrassment occasioned by the fact that all demands for revenue depended for fulfillment wholly upon the action of the respective States. Despite the constant agitation as to the subject and the abundant discussions which took place July 24, 1813, ch. 25, § 1, on licenses for distilling liquors. July 24, 1813, ch. 26, § 1, on auction sales; of one per cent on sales of vessels; one per cent on other sales of goods, etc., with exemptions. August 2, 1813, ch. 39, § 4, on licenses for retailing wines, etc.; one rate for cities, towns and villages, another for the country. August 2, 1813, ch. 53, §§ 1, 2, on bank notes, etc., graduated but not ad valorem; commutable at 11 per cent on dividends. December 15, 1814, ch. 12, § 1, on carriages, graduated but not ad valo rem. December 21, 1814, ch. 15, § 1, on distilled spirits. December 23, 1814, ch. 16, § 1, on auction sales; § 3, on retailers' licenses. January 18, 1815, ch. 22, § 1, on domestic manufactures. Various specific and ad valorem rates, with exemptions, as umbrellas under $2, boots under $5 a pair. January 18, 1815, ch. 23, § 1, on household furniture kept for use (annual duty) with minimum of $200, graduated but not ad valorem. The unit is the family; § 13, exemption of books, etc.; § 14, exemption of certain charitable, religious or literary institutions. February 27, 1815, ch. 61, on plate. April 19, 1816, ch. 58, § 4, on licenses for distilling liquors. Opinion of the Court. in relation to it during the period of the Confederation, in the whole of the proceedings not a word can be found which can give rise to even the suggestion that there was then any thought of restraining the taxing power with reference to the intrinsic operation of a tax upon individuals. On the contrary, the sole and the only question which was ever present and in every form was discussed, was the operation of any taxing power which might be granted to Congress upon the respective States; in other words, the discrimination as regards States which might arise from a greater or lesser proportion of any tax being paid within the geographical limits of a particular State. The proceedings of the Continental Congress also make it clear that the words "uniform throughout the United States," which were afterwards inserted in the Constitution of the United States, had, prior to its adoption, been frequently used, and always with reference purely to a geographical uniformity and as synonymous with the expression," to operate generally throughout the United States." The foregoing situation so thoroughly permeated all the proceedings of the Continental Congress that we might well rest content with their mere statement. shall, however, make a few references on the subject. We The view that intrinsic uniformity was not then conceived is well shown by remarks by Mr. Wilson upon a proposition submitted by him to the Continental Congress on March 18, 1783, (5 Ell. Deb. 67,) that Congress be empowered to lay and impose "a tax of one quarter of a dollar per hundred acres on all located and surveyed lands within each of the States." He said, speaking of the proposed tax, "that it was more moderate than had been paid before the Revolution, and it could not be supposed the people would grudge to pay, as the price of their liberty, what was formerly paid to their oppressors." As early as February, 1781, a resolution was proposed authorizing Congress to levy certain taxes and duties, which resolution contained the proviso, "and the same articles shall bear the same duty and impost throughout the said States without exemption." 1 Ib. p. 92. Though this resolution failed of passage, a report of the committee of the whole was agreed to on the same day, in the form Opinion of the Court. of a resolution recommended to the several States to levy for the use of the United States a duty of 5 per cent upon imports, with certain exceptions, and a duty of 5 per cent upon all prizes and prize goods. As late as December, 1782, however, some of the States had failed to comply with this resolution. 5 Ell. Deb. 13. On January 25, 1783, (5 Ib. 31,) a resolution was proposed declaring that Congress would "make every effort in their power to obtain, from the respective States, general and substantial funds adequate to the object of funding the whole debt of the United States;" The word "general" was stricken out, because susceptible of being considered as implying that every object of taxation within the States should be embraced. That is to say, in order to remove any impression that the word "general" might imply the obligation to levy on all articles, the phraseology of the previous resolution was changed so as to cause the word to have merely a geographical significance, viz., to require that whatever subject of taxation was assessed, the same subject should be taxed in every State, or, in other words, that the particular tax should operate generally throughout the United States. Two days later, a new resolution having been introduced declaring it to be the opinion of Congress that general funds should be established, to be collected by Congress, the same objection was repeated, (Ib. 34,) and the proposition was amended so as to read "establishment of permanent and adequate funds to operate generally throughout the United States." There being controversy as to whether Congress should be allowed to collect the taxes, (Ib. 34,) the debates record the following proceedings: "On the motion of Mr. Madison, the whole proposition was new modelled, as follows: "That it is the opinion of Congress that the establishment of permanent and adequate funds, to operate generally throughout the United States, is indispensably necessary for doing complete justice to the creditors of the United States, for restoring public credit, and for providing for the future exigencies of the war.' "The words 'to be collected under the authority of Congress' were, as a separate question, left to be added afterwards." VOL. CLXXVIII-7 Opinion of the Court. Mr. Madison, after commenting on the demerits of the plans just referred to, prefaced his subsequent remarks with the following (Ib. p. 36): "It remains to examine the merits of a plan of general revenue operating throughout the United States, under the superintendence of Congress." On March 11, 1783, (5 Ell. Deb. 64), a vote was taken upon three questions, the first being: "Shall any taxes, to operate generally throughout the States, be recommended by Congress, other than duties on foreign commerce?" The matter culminated on April 18, 1783, in the adoption of a resolution by nine States, recommending to the several States that Congress be vested with the power to levy, for the use of the United States, certain duties, as well specific as ad valorem, upon goods imported into the States from any foreign port, island or plantation. (1 Ell. Deb. 93.) In an address which submitted the resolution to the States it was observed (Ib. 97): "To render this fund as productive as possible, and, at the same time, to narrow the room for collusions and frauds, it has been judged an improvement of the plan to recommend a liberal duty on such articles as are most susceptible of a tax according to their quantity, and are of most equal and general consumption; leaving all other articles, as heretofore proposed, to be taxed according to their value." It was also stated in the address that "to bring this essential resource (a tax on imposts) into use a concerted uniformity was necessary;" and "that this uniformity cannot be concerted through any channel so properly as through Congress." Thus it is apparent that the expression "uniform throughout the United States" was at that time considered as purely geographical, as being synonymous with the expression "general operation throughout the United States," and that no thought of restricting Congress to intrinsic uniformity obtained, since the powers recommended were absolutely in conflict with such theory. The reasons advanced by those who opposed the various resolutions to which we have referred are, if anything, more deci |