[6] The Court rejected Springer's argument that the Revenue Act of 1864 did not authorize the sale by the tax collector.

The Court set forth a lengthy examination of the history leading to the inclusion of the apportionment requirement in the Constitution: It appears that on the 11th of July, in that year, there was a debate of some warmth involving the topic of slavery.

On the day following, Gouverneur Morris, of New York, submitted a proposition 'that taxation shall be in proportion to representation.'

It is further recorded in this day's proceedings, that Mr. Morris having so varied his motion by inserting the word 'direct,' it passed nem.

The gulf was the share of representation claimed by the Southern States on account of their slave population.

"[8] Comparing Hamilton's understanding of the clause to the facts of the case, the Court stated: The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories.

The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock decision and has made it clear that there is no requirement for apportionment of income taxes.

[12] In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,[13] the Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and the Sixteenth Amendment and concluded that Congress had always had the unfettered power to tax income, as set forth in Springer.