The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-04-17
INCOME TAX DECISION.
FULLER Delivers
TaE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The Court Decides that Taxation on In
comes from State or Municipal Bonds or
from Real Estate is Unconstitutionai-
Bow the Court Stands.

comes from State or Municipal Bonds OF
from Real Estate is Unconstitutional
how the Court Stands.
W WAsR1NGroN, april 10.-The an
nouIccment of the decision Of the Su'
preme Court of the United States in
the income. tax cases Monday was
made in the presence of "a crowded
court room, the spectators lobby being
thronged to its utmost capacity. Pub
lie interest in: the case has drawn an
attendance every decision day since
the argument took place that has tax,
ed the power and ingenuity of the
officials to care for. Among those
within the. rail today were Attorney
General DIney, Assistant Attorney
General Whitney. and Mr.. W. D.
Guthrie, .of,New York, who took part
in the argument; Mr. J. NJ Wilson,
of WaShng gton, of counsel for J. G..
Moore, who sought in an injunction
to restrain Internal Revenue Commits
sioner Miller from proceeding to carry
out the law; Senator David B: Hill, of
New York; who so persistently fought
the insertion of the tax provision IN
the tariff law; Ex-Secretary Of the
Treasury Boutwell,; R. B. Bowler,
comptroller of the treasury; Senators
Mitchell and Hunton. Ex-Attorney
General Garland, the Hon. Geo. G..
German and great number of attor-
neys more or less interested in the &C
ton of the Court
The members. of the Court, except
Mr.. Associate Justice Jackson, entered
the chamber promptly at noon. A
few cases of minor importance were
disposed Of, and the Chief Justice an
nounced that at the conclusion of the
sitting on Thursday the Court would
adjourn over Good Friday, and sew
eral orders of the Court, after which
the great. case of the day was read by
him. He said; amidst an almost pain
ful stiffness: Il am charged with the
duty of announcing the opinion and
Judgment of the Court in the case of
Charles Pollock vs. the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company ct al. " The con-
clusion of the Court were stated to be
as follows:
1. That by the Constitution Federal
taxation is divided into two great
classes taxes and duties, I'M
posts and excise.
2. That the imposition of direct tax
es is governed By the rule of appor-
tionment among the several States ac-
cording to numbers and the lmposl-
ton of duties, imposts and excises by
the rule Of uniformity throughout the
United States.
8. That the principle that taxation
and representation 60 together was
intended to be and was prescribed IN
the Constitution by the establishment
Of the rule Of the apportionment
among the several States, so that such
apportonhent should be according to
numbers in, each State.
4. That the States surrendered their
power.to levy imposts and to regulate
commerce to the General Government
.-ard gave it the concurrent power to
levy direct taxes in reliance ON the
protection afforded by the rules pre-
scribed, and that the compromises of
the Constitution. cannot be disturbed
by legislative action:
5. That these conclusions result
from the text of the Constitution and
are supported by the historical eyi-
dence furnished oy the circumstances
surrounding the framing and adoption
of that instrument and the views Of
those who framed and adopted it.
6. That the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time of the adoption
OF the Constitution was that direct
taxes would not be levied by the Gen
eral Government except under the
pressure of extraordinary exigency,
and such has been the practice down
to August Is, 1894. If the power to do
so is to be exercised as an ordinary
and usual means of supply that fact
furnishes an additional reason for cir
cumspecsion in disposing of the pres
ent cases.
Z. That taxes on real estate belong
to the class of direct taxes, and that
the taxes on rent or income OF real
estate, which is the incident of its
ownership, belong to the same class.
S. That by no previous decision Of
this Court has this question been ad-
indicated to the contrary of the con-
clusions now announced. That so
much of the Act of August Is, 1894.
as attempts to-mpose tax upon the
rent or income Of real estate without
apportionment IS invalid
The Court is further of the opinion
that the Act of August Is, 1894, is in
valid, 50 far,as it attempts to levy a
tax upon the income derived from
municipal bonds. AS municipal cor
poration is the representative of the
State and one of the instrumentalities
of the State Government, the property
emd ssveaue Of municipal corporations
are not the subjects of Federal taxa
ton, nor is the income derived from
the State, county and municipal secu-
rites, since, taxation on the interest
therefrom operates on the power to
borrow before it is exercised, and has
asensible influence On the contract,
and, therefore. such a tax is a tax on
the power of the States and their in
strumentaEties to borrow money, and
consequently -repugnant 10 tae'' Con-
stitution.
Upon each of the other questions ar
gue6 at the Bar, to wit:
1. W,hether the void provisions as
to rents,an& income;frem real estate
invalidates the whole Act.
3. Whether as to the income from
personal property as such the Act is
unconstitutional as laying direct
taxes? -.
3. Whether any part Of the tax, if
not considered as a direct tax, is in
validfor wapt Of uniformity osa either
of the grounds suggestedi
The Jutices who heard the arg5men
are equally divided, and therefore, nc
opinion is expressed. The result iS
that the. decree es the Circuitasss;rt is
reversed and the cause reaenasd ;:wsth
+o ~