The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-21
THE INCOME TAX VOTE.

TO most persons furnishes a surprise In
the decision of the Supreme Court on
the income tax is the way the vote
stood.
This was as follows:
Against the law-Chief Justice Full
LER and Justices FIELD, GRAY, BREWER,
SmRAs--5.
For the law - Justices HARLAN,
WHITE, Brown, JACKsoN--4.
In the former decision of the court.
Justice JACKSON being absent, for ex-
empting incomes from real estate and
State, county, and municipal bonds, the
vote Stood:
Against the law-Chief Justice
FULLER aud Justices FIELD, GRAY,
BREWER, BROWN, SHIRAs-8.
For the law-Justices HARLAN,
WHITE.
And on the unconsttutionality of the
balance of the whole bill, the tie vote
stood
Against the law-Chief Justice Full
LER, Justices FIELD, GRAY, BREWER.
For the law - Justices HARLAN,
WHITE, BROWN. SHIRAs--4.
1t will be observed that Justices
HARLAN and WHITE have maintained
throughout that the law in all its
phases was constitutional. In the for
mer decision, Chief Justice FULLER
and Justices FIELD, GRAY, and BREWER
declared for the unconstitutionality of
the law in all its phases, while Justices
Brown and SHIRAs joined with them
in the decision that the law was uncon-
stitutional in making tax on in
comes from real estate and bonds, and
joined with Justices HARLAN and
WHITE in deciding that the law was
constitutional so far as 1t related to
other incomes.
When Chief Justice FULLER, in pro-
mitigating this first decision of the court,
plainly invited re-opening of the case,
with view to securing decision whore
there was a tie on the law as a whole,
it was expected that Justice JACKSON
would contribute his opinion to that Of
Chief Justice FULLER, and Justices
FIELD, GRAY, and BREWER, and
thus throw the balance of the court in
favor of a decision declaring the whole
law unconstitutional. Such, however, is
not the case. Justice JACKSON took the
other side and if Justice SHIRAs had not
changed his views the balance
of the law covering all income named,
except real estate and municipal bonds,
would have been declared constitutional.
All the justices except Justice SHIRAs
maintained the same views as they did
in the former decision, and Justice
JACKsoN's vote would, on the basis of
the first vote, have resulted in a, popu-
larly speaking, quite unexpected de-
cision.
SO far as the earlier decision went the
views of Justices HARLAN and WHITE
carried little weight against the opinion
of the six justices that, as the origin of
income is not to be taxed by the United
States under the Constitution, aud as
Congress cannot accomplish by indirec-
ton that which it is prohibited from
doing by direction, it cannot levy
tax on real property under pretence
of imposing it on rents. But the strange
ness of the divergence of opinion in the
Court lay in the tie vote Oh the balance
of the bill whereby two of these very six
judges-Justices BROWN and SHIRAs-
held that an income tax may be levied
ON incomes derived from all other
forms of property. And Justice
WHITE at that time did service
in pointing out that the exemption of
real estate is a strained and illogical in
Of the constitution unless
income from personal property is to be
exempt likewise. Justice WHITE, main
tanning the strange doctrine that Con-
gress has unlimited power of taxation,
except that of taxing exports, was
consistent in pointing
out the unsoundness Of separating real
from personal property, and that the
two justices who followed Chief Justice
FULLER aud Jus tices FIELD, GRAY, and
BREWER part way had not really stood
by their decision when they made dis
That Justice SHIRAs was influenced
by this view of the situation in w hich
Justice Brown and he found themselves
is probably to be attributed his change
of base and the consequent decision.
Instead of Justice JACKSON, the decision
has really rested on Justice SHIRAs to
whom renewed argument in behalf Of
consistency prevailed, il it did not with
Justice BROWN We had thought, how
ever, that neither Justice SHIRAs nor
Justice BROWN could have had but little
faith in the strength Of their convic-
tions which divided the court equally on
the main and comprehensive principle.
We think the country-at-large will