Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1895-05-22
WHOLE LAW WIPED OUT.
Chief Justice Fuller Completes the
Courts Opinion and it is
Put in Type.

ion of the Supreme court in the income
tax case will be handed down next Mon
day and there is little doubt that the
entire law will be wiped out. Chief
Justice Fuller, it is .,,iid, has completed
the writing of the decision and it has
been put into type
The result has been reached only after
series of remarkable changes in the
court, the entire history of which is not
likely to be given to the public. Justice
Jackson, on whom the burden of the
case seemed to rest, took sides in favor
of the constitutionality of the law as Il
whole, but united with other justices in
eXempting rents and state bonds from the
opera ton of the law. His decision ap-
friends of the law were more or less tri-
umphant.
Unfortunately, just at this time, which
was shortly after noon last Saturday, it
became evident that one of the justices
in favor of the law, but against the rents
saw fit to change his opinion. In the
original hearing of the case he voted that
taxation OF rents was unconstitutional,
but that the law, as whole, was good
law. Saturday he withdrew from his
original position and voted that tax on
rents was not a direct tax. and hence did
not assail the broad principles laid down
in the constitution.
Justice EOSltlOn.
If it should happen that Justice Brown
writes and delivers next Monday Il dis
senting opinion, it is probable he is the
one who changed back from his previous
advanced opinion, which was we'll estab-
lished. The conference of Saturday de-
veloped the fact that Chief Justice Full
Ter, Justices Field, Gray and Brewer
were still opposed to the law as a whole
Practically the whole court was willing
nd ioin
A majority of the court including JUS
tlce jackson, was opposed to the tax on
rentals An apparent majority was III
favor of uphoding the law as whole.
but just at this juncture Justice Shiras,
who had Wavered during the first hear
ing began to show evidences of changing
front.
Thus it will be seen that Justice Brown
changed front on the rental question and
Shiras changed back on the law itself
He was still undecided when Chief JUS
tice Fuller started to write an opinion,
and for a while the Chicago member of
the court did not know whether he was
writing the decision of the court or a
dissenting opinion.
Finally Justice Shiras took his stand
with the opponents of the law and then
the chief justice went to work on his
opinion, knowing it would go down into
history as the decision of the court. 1t
will almost certainly be handed down
Monday, and the chances are there will be
several individual opinions delivered at
toe same time
Complication will Result.
In the event of the decision being
against the law, some interesting ques-
lions will arise The government is not,
of course, entitled to retain the taxes
which may have been paid for income
by those who aspire to promptness and
who were not willing to postpone pay
ment until near the expiration of the le-
gal date of payment, July 1. But the
treasury department cannot of its own
motion refund the amounts received.
There is no provision in the law for do
ing this, not is it believed that there is
any provision in any general law which
would authorize such refunding. Those
who have already paid the income tax
will. undoubtedly, be compelled for a
time to continue to be the victims of their
own zeal. The money probably cannot
be refunded except by an appropriation
from Congress- That is the opinion of
eminent lawyers. How soon such appro-
priation would be made it is impossible
to say. 1t is, of course, just obligation
of the government and ultimately Con-
gress would provide for the refunding of
There is another problem which will
have a much wider interest than that
which attaches to the payment of the
taxes. The question will be raised. What
is to become of returns which have been
made of the incomes and how can any
impecunious or corrupt subordinate of the
internal revenue service be punished if
he shall disclose the secrets of these re-
turns to INSCRIPTIONS business rivals,
or otherwise give them publicity? Tn
der what law could such disclosures be
punished? The penalty provided for
making public the returns or giving any
information regarding them is severe and
explicit in the law itself. But if that
law shall be declared unconstitutional
how can revenue officers who violate it
be punished? Would the courts hold
that they were amenable to q law that had
Would the courts maintain that decision
which declared the tax unconstitutional
would still leave in effect the law which
imposed penalties for the disclosure
of the returns made? Another question
which will be raised is, Where will these
returns, which involve the secrets of the
business OF the entire country, be perma>
nently lodged? VIII they remain unused
in pigeon-holes, subject to the inspection
of the idle, the curious and possibly the
corrupt, or will they be returned to those
who made them? And what provision
can be made for their return, or what
provision will the government make for
preserving inviolate the secrets which are
SO important to those who made the re,
turns aud to their business rivals, but
which, in the event of the declaration thai
the law was unconstitutional, will be Of
no value to the government? The repeal
of the law will raise very many like ques>
tons which will be of great interest and
as to the solution of which internal rev,
enue officials admit that they are now en-.
tirely ignorant.