As Chief Justice Fuller said in the Income Tax cases: "The acceptance of the rule of apportionment was one of the compromises which made the adoption of the Constitution possible, and secured the creation of that dual form of government, so elastic and so strong, which has thus far survived in unabated vigor. If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property."[61] Nor is the rule of apportionment in itself unfair, even under the conditions existing to-day. If a direct income tax were now levied and duly apportioned among the states according to population as required by the Constitution, the smaller states would pay comparatively little and the more populous and richer states would have to bear what would seem to be their full share of national taxation. New York would then have to pay approximately ten per cent. of such a tax, Pennsylvania eight per cent., Illinois six per cent., Ohio five per cent., whilst Nevada would pay only one-twentieth of one per cent. and Delaware one-quarter of one per cent., although these two states have a representation in the Senate equal to that of New York and Pennsylvania. Indeed, ten states would have to pay more than one-half of any direct tax, leaving the balance to be divided among the remaining thirty-six states according to their population. On the other hand, if a graduated income tax such as is now proposed were levied without regard to apportionment, and all incomes of $4,000 and under were exempted, the effect would be to cast more than ninety per cent. of the entire tax upon the inhabitants of less than one-third of the states.