St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-09

as to the rents and incomes from real
estate invalidate the whole act.
Second-Whether as to the income
from personal property, as such,
the act is unconstitutional, as laying
direct taxes.
Third-Whether any part of the
tax, if not considered as. a direct
tax, is invalid for want of uniform
ity of either of the grounds suggest
ed
The body of the opinions was de-
voted to the consideration of the
question from a constitutional point
of view, and involved a very elabo-
rate definition of the meaning Of the
phrase "direct taxes" and also a
construction of the constitutional re-
quirements as to apportionment.
This made necessary a review of
many former opinions of the court,
a number of which, including the
Hylton and Springer cases, were
quoted from a length and comment
ed upon. He said that under the
constitution, federal taxes were di-
vided into direct taxes and duties,
impoStS and eXciSeS, and laid down
the rule that direct taxes should
under that instrument be governed
by the rule of apportionment among
the several states according to popu-
lation.
Referring to the question of direct
taxation, he said that it was not to
be presumed that the trainers of the
constitution were not more capable
of appreciating what they were do
ing when they provided for the diff
ferentiation of imports
The trainers of the fundamental law
had before them more prominently
than any other thought the idea that
taxation and representation should go
hand in hand. The constitution was
the result of compromise between
the states and the federal government,
whereby the states surrendered the
right of levying imposts, duties and
excises, but it was evident did not
mean to transfer to the general gov
ernment the right to levy direct taxes,
except in cases of great emergencies
This compact, the chief justice said
had been observed up to the time of
the passage of the act of August, 1894
The chief justice held that in taxing
the. income derived from land itself
it virtually and to all intents and pur-
poses taxed the land itself, for, he
asked, what was the land to any one
but for the profit derived from it?
The name of the tax was unimpor-
tant, but the effect was of vast con-
sequence, and as there could be neither
distinction nor material difference he
tween taxing the land and the profit
derived from it, the court had reached
the opinion that this portion of the
law was invalid and could not be sus-
tanned.
The same conclusion was reached in
regard to the provision for taxing
state, county and municipal bonds
He. said, in effect, that it was clearly
never intended by the states to dele
gate authority to the national con-
gress to weaken their credit by pro-
viding tax upon their instrumental
ties and revenue agencies. Such an ex-
ercise of power was repugnant to the
constitution, and therefore the portion
of the law putting it into execution
must always be declared invalid.
On the other points involved the
opinion did not venture, because of the
even division of the court The chief
justice was not prepared to give out
the full text of the decision but fur
nished the following summary of the
concluding portion of it to the press:
First-That by the constitution fed
eral taxation is divided into two great
classes-direct taxes and duties, i'm
posts and excises.
Second-The imposition of direct
taxes is governed by the rule of ap-
portionment among the several states,
according to numbers and the imposi-
tion of duties, imposts and excises by
the rule of uniformity throughout the
United States.
Third-That the principle that taxa
ton and representation together was
intended to be and was preserved in
the constitution by the establishment
of the rule of apportionment among the
several states, so that such apportion-
ment should be according to numbers
in each state.
Fourth-That the states surrendered
their power to levy imposts and to
regulate commerce to the general gov
ernment and gave it the concurrent
power to levy direct taxes in reliance
on the protection afforded by the rules
prescribed, and that the compromises
of the constitution cannot be disturbed
by legislative action.
Fifth-That these conclusions result
from the text of the constitution, and
are supported by the historical evil
dence furnished by the circumstances,
surrounding the framing and adoption
of that instrument and the views of
those who framed and adopted it.
SiXth-That the understanding and
expectation at the time of the adoption
of the constitution was that direct
taxes would not be levied by the
general government, except under the
pressure of extraordinary exigency and
such has been the practice down to
Aug. Is, 1894. If the power to do so, is
to be exercised as an ordinary and US
ual means of supply, that fact fur
nishes an additional reason for circum-
spection in dispoSing of the present
case.
Seventh-That taxes on real estate
belong to the class of direct taxes, and
tnaI the taxes Oh the rent or income
of real estate, which is the incident
of it's ownership, belong to the same
class.
Eighth-That by no previous decision
of this court has this question been
adjudicated to the contrary OF the con-
clusions now announced.
Ninth-That SO much of the act Of
Aug. Is, 1894, as attempts to impose a
tax upon the rent or income Of real
estate without apportionlnent is in
valid.
The court is further of opinion that
the act of Aug. Is. 1894, is Invalid so
far as it attempts TO levy tax upon
the income derived from municipal
bonds. AS municipal corporal ton is
the representative of the state and
one of the instrumentalities of the
state government, the property and
revenues of municipal corporations are
not subjects of federal taxation, nor
is the income derived from state,
county and municipal securities, since
taxation on the interest therefrom