Other lawyers, notably Senator Elihu Root, took a different view of the scope of the amendment, holding that it would not enlarge the taxing power but merely remove the obstacle found by the Supreme Court to the Income Tax Law of 1894, i.e., the necessity of apportionment among the states in proportion to population. This latter view has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court. In a case involving a tax on income from exports the Court said:[1] The Sixteenth Amendment ... does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.... [Footnote 1: _Peck v. Lowe_, 247 U.S., 165.] In a case decided a little earlier[1] the Court, speaking through Chief Justice White, had said: By the previous ruling (i.e., in _Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co._, 240 U.S., 1) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.... [Footnote 1: _Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co._, 240 U.S., 103, 112.] From what has been said it will be evident that the doctrine of exemption of state and municipal bonds from federal taxation is firmly embedded in our law and has not been affected by the Sixteenth Amendment. Whether it is a doctrine suited to present-day conditions is a question outside the scope of this paper. The fear of federal encroachment, so strong in the minds of the makers of our Constitution, has become little more than a tradition. To many it doubtless will seem that any rule of law which operates to prevent the nation, in the great exigency of war, from taxing a portion of the property of its citizens is pernicious and should be changed. If this be the view of a sufficient number the change can and will be made. Lawyers think, however, that it will have to be done by the orderly method of constitutional amendment, not by passing taxing statutes which a reluctant Court will be obliged to declare unconstitutional. Just now the tide of popular sentiment is setting strongly toward such a change. It was advocated in a recent Presidential message.[1] The immunity enjoyed by state bond issues is coming to be regarded less as a safeguard of state rights than as a means whereby the rich escape federal income surtaxes. One is tempted to predict that the next formal amendment of the Constitution will deal with this subject. If so, another inroad will have been made by the General Government on the failing powers of the states. [Footnote 1: Message of President Harding to Congress, December 6, 1921.] X IS THE FEDERAL CORPORATION TAX CONSTITUTIONAL?[1]