be so, all I can say is, so much the worse for the Crown." Lord Justice Chitty says:[1] "It is incumbent on the Crown when claiming, the tax to make out affirmatively that the case falls within the statute. * * * You must see that the tax is expressly imposed; the subject is not to be taxed without clear words." And this judgment was affirmed by the House of Lords.[2]
And in the late Earl of Selbourne Case,[3] it is pointed out that in taxation the Crown can never ask "a benevolent intepretation" for itself. See also the following cases in the House of Lords; Partington Case,[4] Cox vs. Rabit,[5] Pryce Case,[6] Oriental Bank Case.[7]
As the Government has been engaged in a continuing effort to impose taxes prohibited by the Constitution before the amendment, through what would simply be tax legislation by overruling both the judiciary and the Constitution, it may well be worth while to say a few words upon the essentially different principles and policies involved, and the radically different dangers and consequences that would arise from so amending the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States has referred to the oft used comparison between a tree and its fruits, as an illustration of the difference between "Capital" and "Income." There is, therefore, propriety in adhering to it, and insisting upon the greatest clarity in maintaining this essential distinction.
