DIRECT TAX. In Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, it was said that in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the mean ing of the constitution it must be ascer tained whether the one upon whom, by law, the burden of paying it is first cast, can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct, and hence, however obvious in other re spects it might be a duty, impost or ex cise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uni formity and must be apportioned. This was said in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 20 Sup. Ct. 747, 44,L. Ed. 969, to be a disputable theory. It is said direct taxes within the constitution are only capitation taxes, as ex pressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 586, 26 L. Ed. 253 ; but the inclusion of rentals from real estate was held to make it direct to that ex tent ; Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 420, 15
Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, where it is said, although there have been from time to time intimations that there 'might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included un der the words duties, imposts and excises, such a tax for more than • a hundred years has as yet remained undiscovered.
Direct taxes include those assessed upon property, person, business, income, etc., of those who pay them ; while indirect taxes are levied upon commodities before they reach the consumer, and are paid by those upon whom they ultimately fall, not as taxes, but as part of the market price of the com modity. Under the second head may be classed the duties upon imports, and the ex cise and stamp duties levied upon manu factures; Cooley, Taxation 10.
See TAX; EXCISE.