New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09

demonstrates the consensus Of opinion S,ade
effect Of the Interpretation Of the Coi'''''
by this Court many years before involving the
10 Every case in the lower conrf And was decided
in their favor ,,,r, uos that
H. The first that came to this CSo onIs Was vail
49, which involved the validity OF tax h on ar de-
rived from real estate or any other the opInion OF
sues were certified to this Court anu ' ,ha P,w vas
distinctly and es sSnedy requested The law Itself
and the put involved every n,,ed nv able
counsel Not line authority referred 10 in t bS
opinion here. nor line OF argumGeno and able as
has been the presentation OF the cases 80, na' IN the
just cited werrhe equals in every part,rua ar
of those now before us paper attached TO one OF
the briefs in that case signed by Mr. Bartlett o..
Ncw-York goes over the whole subject reviews tne
debates in the convention, and the opips OF case
and quotes most of the authorities now cited by h ms
Court in order to establish the in m mcome
tax made such tax direct, at least TO hat extent:
The of the Court to the question thus put was
that the law was constitutional =. -. l., ,oro
r. This answer involved every point tha' 10 "'''
49, The same issue again came before this Court m
the case of Veazey Bank versus Fenno 10 "d h
33 This case involved the yay 0, nra ,H J set
up again advanced The Court rc,eX an re
them all and held the law valid reassertins is pr
vous views and giving the construction az pc
fore to thr Hvon case and the other authorities
a. Later a case came to this Court involving
tax the right to take real estate by i
was asserted that the tax was direct, and all the
points including criticism OF The Hyiton casr}
held unavai:abie in them all gone over once on
more 1t was plausiby uged IN thf D,et: was
necessarily charge on the real tstate ana thsr re-
fore direct, The Court decided the tax va1,d con-
viewing the other cases, ana hoidlns theih 'o''
Is Yet again, in the case OF Springer ye s.'o
was a'i before this Court ii WAS elaboraeIy argued
| here made The Court reviewed all the arguments
against the tax. and held that they were untenabc'
iG These repeated decisions it seems TO me; re-
the from the does Ss not ovee
| these cases directly. but. in my opinion, 1t does
| is. The decisions cited here determined not on;y
| that a general income tax Is consututiohai "tm ,
that the inclusion therein Of the rentals Of real
estate does not make 1t direct - ,-..,., +,
the response made by the Court to the duesIiIoa
put TO It in the insurance tax case. II Vas arc
tax on the right 70 take real estate by inheritance
and was included in the principle OF the Springer
20 The opinion of this Court in holding Ina, mat
9s Inclusion S Sd n nx 1rcct rot 90 only the
decisions have cited but Involves i seems TO mo-
a,c6 r2aG ON an nd"dua a"cordns to his
come IS not direct tax. now can IL De sam tna
~ iacluaon taerein Of rentals derived ron rea
| estate makes It direct tax pro tan,o? TINS m
clusion assuredly reaches his req estate %I,y n.
TSars to be 70 hol that that which is direct is in
direct and that which is inIrc't y r.tr-'..
q. Tho contention that the LEGALITY o. TIE IL
cusion Of revenues from real state in an ,no9e
rendered unon the matter IN hand seems 20 mo IN
tcnabe | think | have shown that this question
cited and that in Fact th"y could not have been
decided without nrooonncins rpoin H.. . ., me-
conclusive here. could the insurance COMPANY, N
The c,sc just mentioned have boon hesri' au M
n'' p'rn nr IN ,Je undo the law then in force?
had l,4rfl Ak IN =
80 flr as those revenues wer" c1ncfrted the income
tx wa direct, and must Therefore b. apportionoi
among ne states according 10 population would
not this plea have been conclusive against u, Woud
not this court have said. in effect. The issue pre-
yiously presented was the Liability o. your entire
Income 10 taxation You have already ea p, f
frlly your objection - the inclusion Of rentals rom
raj estate in The estimation OF your income , our
tho court below FOR our opinion upon tne Eal.Is
the Income Tax law as a whole and W. declared II
n II The decree in the above case settled the Ia
hllity OF the incom" II the insurance company 10
- matters respecting which the 'our; 30" nous
that II not inclusive. , =,
y but the decision that to include tho rent OF
realty IN an income tax Involves the levyng u a
direct tax the realty. such as must De appor-
,rt"tbcr sucb Inclusion Affects real estate. but
whether the tax thus levied Is direct tax thereon
y Accorilng f. the very words OF the statute
this tax - indirect II Is in no sense tax on land
such |, places no burden on real estate Il II Is
not rented II the rent Is not collected. or u we
owner occupies his land himself II puts no direct
burden on land under any circumstances for IT
allows the deduction from the income derived RON
land ana all other sources ~ 1900 az well as all
expenses incurred In the transaction Of business
'rhr fallacy ~ th' opinion | see u. les IN IN"
assumption that Tho Constitution forbii- an IN
direct taxation ~ land by the Federal tiov"rnm. y
" 'hOui airport Inuen' among tho states ~ 's
orlv direct burdens that must be so apportioned
AMI N" tx ON incomes imposed by the statute now
under usilsra ton H. I'm rs essence and by the
very terms OF the law. indirect IN every regard
/ feel comlclled 10 thus briefly explain my rea>
sons for not concurr'ng IN me opinion iust 10
llyerci have not had the time 10 set out more
FULLY the grounds of my dissent propose 10 10 So.
In my judgment; the position here assumed is fun
OF danger institutions. The august power
lodged IN this court Of passing upon the consttu-
tioualiy of acts OF Congress has always been dis
creetly and carefully exercised believe this Is the
frst case in history whore an authority which
has been conceded 20 Congress by nearly one hum
drci years OF acquesccnce in all departments OF the
tioVslnmrut. AMI has been sanctioned h. repeated
adtudcatious 81 this court has been julically de-
Hicl