Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1895-05-23
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That Is the Income Tax Law
Decision.
The United States Supreme Court by Five
to Four Declares the Act Invalid
Opinion by Chief Justice
Fuller.

WASHINGTON, May 2l.-Ihc United
States supreme court yesterday de-
clared the income tax law unconstitu-
tional in toto. Chief Justice Fuller read
the decision of the majority. reading
from manuscript. Five justices were
against the constitutionality of the law
to four for it. Those against were Chief
Justice Fuller and Justices Field, Gray.
Brewer and Shiras Those for the
law, Justices, Harlan, White, Brown
and Jackson.
All of the members of the court were
present, including Justice Jackson
AS soon as the justices had taken
their seats the chief justice began the
delivery of the main opinion. After
some preliminary talk he said:
LAS heretofore stated, the constitu-
ton divided 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 as
to each class. The power to lay direct
taxes apportioned among the several
states in proportion to their representa-
ton in the popular branch of congress,
a representation based on population
ascertained by the census, was plenary
and absolute, but to lay direct taxes
without apportionment was forbidden.
The power to lay duties, imposts and
excuses was subject to the qualifca-
ton that the imposition must be uni
form 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
- 20
not, in the meaning of the constitu-
ton and the court went no farther as
to the tax on the incomes from real es-
tate than to hold that it fell within
the same class as the source whence
the income was derived, that is, that
tax upon the realty and tax upon the
receipts therefrom were alike direct;
while as to the income from municipal
bonds. that could not be taxed because
of want of power to tax the source,
and no reference was made to the ma
ture of the tax as being direct or indi-
rect
eve are now permitted to broaden
the field of inquiry and determine to
which of the two great classes tax
upon a persons entire income, whether
derived from rents or products or other
wise of real estate, or from bonds,
stocks or other forms of personal prop
erty belongs and we are unable to con-
clude that the enforced subtraction
from the yield of all the oIners's real or
personal property in manner prescribed
is so different from d tax upon the
property itself that it is not a direct
but an indirect tax in the meaning of
the constitution. The words of the
constitution are to be taken in their
A<Dl HI
construction. In Gibbons VS.. Ogden,
Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall, with his
usual felicity. said: AS men, whose
intentions require no concealment,
generally employ the words which
most directly and aptly express
the ideas they intend to convey,
the enlightened patriots who framed
our constitution and the people
who adopted it must be understood to
have employed words in their natural
sense. and to have intended what they
have said. We know of no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words
direct taxes on the one hand and 'du-
ties, impoSts and excuses on the other
were used in the constitution in their
natural and obvious senses, nor in ar
irving at what those terms EN- brace,
do we perceive any ground for enlarg-
ing them beyond or narrowing them
within their natural ana OBVIOUS I'M
port at the time the constitution was
framed and ratified.
The chief justice next discussed the
reasons for the constitutional provi
Sions regarding direct taxation. The
states had p1enary powers of taxation
but gave up the great sources of reve
nue. derived from commerce, and re
tanned the power Of legying taxes anc
duties covering anything other thar
excuses, but in respect to them the
range of taxation was narrowed by the
power granted to the federal govern
Eaent over interstate com nerce. While
they granted the power of apportion
ing direct taxation they secured to the
states the opportunity to pay the
amount apportioned and to recouf
from their own citizens in the mos1
feasible way.
The conclusions of the court were a,
follows:
First, we adhere to the opinion al
ready announced that taxes on real
estate being indisputably direct taxes
taxes on the rents on income of reaa
estate are equally direct taxes.
Second, we are of opinion that take:
on personal property or on the income
of personal property are likewise direct
taxes
Third. the tax imposed by section:
p to 81 inclusive, of the act OF 1891, 81
far as it falls on the income of rea
estate snd on personal property being
q direct tax within the meaning of the
constitution and therefore unconstitu
tional and void. because not appor