Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-09


to municipal and state bonds: that
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Flea.
Gray Brewer. Brown and shlras held
1t TO be invalid on incomes derived
from rents and that Justices Harlan
and White dissented from this opinion
as to rents.
II is impossible to state the exact
division as to the validity as TO the
other parts of the law further than
was disclosed by the proceedings, 1t
appears quite clear that Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan and White
voted to sustain tine other parts of the
law and the best opinion obtainable Il
that Justice Brown stood with them In
this opinion, which would leave Jus
tees Field. Gray. Brewer ana shiras
as the opponents OF the law as a
whole
chief Justice Fuller. after making
few routine announcements, began al
1890 TO read the courts decree, winch
was rendered In the case OF Charles
Pollock VS.. the Farmers Loan and
Trust company ami others. TINS was
the first in ordor Of the cases against
the trust companies and the cOnciu-
sions reached In II apply also TO the
case OF Hyde vs.. the Continental Trust
company, as the question AT Issue is the
same la both cases. The chief justice
read with considerable rapidly. but
his voice was at all times clear Eiiu dis
tinct. The delivery of the opinion con-
sumed an hours time and all present
gave the closest attention.
Mr., Fuller began with brief refer
enoe to the question of Jurisdiction In
the case. This point had, he said, been
frequently referred to, but he dismissed
II by saying that as the question had
been waived in the argument Of the
case in this court, there appeared no
objection TO considering the case pure
~ on Its merits,
Proceeding to this end, he gave his
attention 10 the objections to the law
as made by the appellant
The body of the opinion was devoted
to the consideration Of a question from
a constitutional point Of view and In
volved q very elaborate definition Of the
meaning of the phrase direct taxes
and also construction OF the consti-
tutional requirement as to apportion-
ment.
This made necessary a review OF the
many former opinions OF the court, u
number OF which, including the Hilton
and Springer cases, were quoted from at
length and commented upon. lie said
that under the constitution Federal
taxes we're divided into direct taxes
and duties, imports and excuses AMI
laid down the rule thet direct taxes
should under that instrument be gov
erned by the rule Of apportionment
among the several states according to
population.
Referring to the question or direct
taxation he said that II was NOT 70 pe
presumed that the trainers OF the con-
stitution were not men capable OF ap-
preeiating what they were doing when
they provided for the differentiation OF
They provided for the differentiation
of irnposta, excuses and duties from
other forms OF taxation.
The trainers OF the fundamental law
had before them more prominently
than any other thought the idea that
taxation and representation should
go hand Ia hand.
The constitution was the result or n
compromise between the state and the
Federal goyernpent, whereby the
states surrendered the right Of levying
imposts, duties and excuses; but
II was evident 1t did not mean
to transfer TO the general gov
eminent the right to levy az
rect taxes except in cases OF great
emergencies. This compact. tho chief
Justice said. lad been observed up to