The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-05-21
THE INCOME TAX LAW KILLED.
THE SUPREME COURT DECLARES
1T UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

er and Shiras-Justices Harlan.
Brown, jackson aud White voted
in Favor of Its COnstitutionaIitv.
The Taxes Proposed TO BE Levied
Under the Law Declared Direct
Taxes.
Washington, May 2O.-The United States
supreme court to-day decided the income
tax to be unconstitutional the court di-
viding as follows:
/ Against the Law-Chief Justice Fuller
Justices, Field, Gray Brewer and shiras.
For the Law-Justices Harlan. Brown.
jackson and White.
Chief Justice Euller read the opinion of
the court.
The interest attaching to all the pro-
eeedings in connection with the income
| tax cases was again manifested this
morning, when the supreme court room
was crowded under the belief that the
! final judgment Of the court in the income
/ tax cases would be announced. This in
/ terest was heightened by knowledge of
the fact, circulated just a few moments
before the court convened, that Associate
Justice Jackson had returned to Washing
ton and would SIT on the bench while the
opinion was being delivered This was al
| together a surprise, and his coming had
been so skillfully concealed that his ap-
pearance was necessary to convince some
people of its truth. He did not go home, as
stated, but spent the week in PhHadel-
phia, in consultation with physician.
When the justices came in and were
formally announced by the crier they
were greeted by a distinguished array Of
counsel within the bar, and a throng of
| spectators in the portion of the chamber
set aside for the public AS on previous
! similar occasions large proportion of
the visitors were ladies. The Attorney
General and his full staff of assistants,
including Solicitor General Holmes Con-
rad occupied their reserved seats, and at
their right was Hon. James c. Carter, the
eminent New York counsel, who argued the
cases originally with the Attorney Gen
eral in behalf OF the law Nearby was
Comptroller of the Currency Eckels, In
ternal Revenue Commissioner Miller and
other officials. There were also present a
number of senators and representatives
in the city who were interested in the out
come of the case.
When the justices took heir seats it was
observed that the chief justice had an
unusually large bundle of manuscript in
his hands, but nothing was thought of this
as score or more of opinions were ex-
pected. But Immediately there was a SEN
sation, for ignoring an almost wholly un-
broken rule, which reserves the announce
ment of opinions by the chief Justice to
the last, Justice Fuller plunged at once
into tae income tax cases. He read his
opinion In full' occupying about an hours
time, and spoke with an earnestness that
manifested the depth of feeling expressed
in the opening sentences of the opinion.
In delivering the opinion in the income
tax cases, Chief Justice Fuller said;
whenever this court is required to pass
upon the validity of AN act of congress as
tested by the fundamental law enacted
by the people, the duty imposed demands
in its discharge the utmost deiiberation
and care, and invokes the deepest sense
of responsibility. And this is especially
so when the question involves the exercise
or great governmental power, and
brings into consideration as vitally affect
ed by the decision, that complex system of
government so sagaciously framed to Sc
cure and perpetuate IAN indestructible
union, composed of indestructible states"
We have, therefore, with an anxious de-
sire to omit nothing which might in any
degree tend to elucidate the questions sub
mttted, and aided by further able argu-
ments embodying the fruits of elaborate
research, carefully re-eXamine these cases,
with the result that while our former con
clusions remain unchanged, their scope
must be enlarged by the acceptance of
their logical consequences. The very ma
ture of the constitution, as observed by
Chief Justice Marshall, in one of his
greatest judgments, requires that only its
great outlines should be marked, It's i'm
pOrtant objects designated, and the minor
ingredients which compose those objects
be deducted from the nature of the objects
themselves. In considerion this question
then, we must never forget that it is a
constitution that we are exposing.
''As heretofore stated. the constitution di- |
vided federal taxation into two great !
classes, the class Of direct taxes, and the |
class of duties, imposts and excises, and !
prescribed two rules which qualified the |
grant of power to each class. The pow |
er to lay direct taxes apportioned among |
the several states in proportion TO their |
representation in the popular branch of |
congress, a representation based on popu- |
lation as ascertained by the census, was |
plenary and absolute but to lay direct |
taxes without apportionment was forbid |
den. The power to lay duties, imposts
and eXcises was subject to the qualifica-
tion that the imposition must be uniform |
throughout the United States
Our previous decision was confined to
the consideration of the validity of the
tax on the income from real estate and on
the income from municipal bonds. The
question thus limited was whether such
taxation was direct or not, in the mean-
ing of the constitution; and the court
went no farther, as to the tax on the in
come from real estate, than to hold that it
fell within the same class as the source
whence the income was derived, that is
that a tax upon the realty and tax up,
on the receipts therefrom were alike d.
rect; while as to the income from munic-
ipal bonds that could not be taxed be-
cause of want of power to tax the source
and no reference was made to the nature |
of the tax as to being direct or indirect
I'VE are now permitted to broaden the !
field of the inquiry, and to determine to
which of the two great classes a tax llpon
a persons entire income, whether derived
from rents, or products, or otherwise. of
real estate, or from bonds, stocks or other
forms of personal property, belongs: and
we are unable to conclude that the en-
forced subtraction from the yield Of all
the owners real or personal property in
the manner prescribed is so different from
a tax upon the property itself, that it Is
not a direct, but an Indirect tax in the
meaning of the constitution.
r No fa,-