New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-16
MOTHER HEARING ASKED.
WILL, THE SUPREME COURT REOPEN THE
INCOME TAN CASES?

JUSTICES, BI'T 40 ACTION IL TAkhN oN
rrGRoryps on WHICH TIE AP-
prtIANTs BASE THEIR
REQUEST FOR \
RErIEARING.
Washington April l5--W. ID. Guthrie. OF counsel
FOR op,oI,ants in the income tax cases OF Charles
Pollock against the Farmers Loan ana Trust Com
many Of AL and Lewis IA. Hyde against the Con-
tjnentol Trust Company Of New-York ct al. to-day
submitted a petition for rehearng of the cases
TO the United states supreme Court. copies OF
ba docu,nen, were given to the Justices but there
were no proceedings IN open court. ana no action
Ia. been taken. The petition Is as follows.
To the Honorable the Justice, of the Supreme Court
OF the Cnted states , >, ,1.,o tho ,r,ei-
Charles Pollock and Levi, H. Hyde the api ne
ition for rehearing and submit the following rea-
First@rha question involved in these cases was as
t. the consttulolahly Of the PROVISIONS o, ur ~,
act OF Ansns5 l." mon iG~|mes The Court mas held
that the are unconstitutional so iar a. aney
Of real estate and income derived from municlnl
bondS T. Rar j., "a S" to h ooRng ~
lions. and has expressed no opinion III REGARD ~
i. Whether the void ptovls ons invadate the whole
y Whether as TO the income from personal prop
are direct At ta sCs' ''' '''
g. Wheihcr any part Of the tax. Il not conadered
as n direct tax Is invalid for want OF uniformity:
The court haS reversed the decree OF the circuit
Court and ramandei the case WIN dfeC Mons sno -
enter decree in favor OF eomp;sinani IN rc;peSS e
eo o, thc yo4nay OF r tnf TAX sa U" an md
that which Il h,.ds IN irus; md on the income from
the municipal bonds owned % so ned a Iy stated
have been decided there has been decision OF the
T nf s ae q "nd M aI&mcnt has annoncel
authori;atvely establishing any prnrlp@, Tor in'q
AT. Bank. i Wheat 59-1S; DdrAnt agt Essex Coz
Ths court having been established 10y the Consti-
tuition, and it, judicial power eNtenilns 10 a. ca,
and .Svs Of Inc Tinted states must necessarily
b. The ultimate tribunal for the deterhidt'o h Oh
these quei, In all cases in VIII .u,h "a, st ons
may arse there can therefore be NJ authoritative
decision N reference To tn same except oS t"i'
S-conI-rhe Court early IN It's history adopted the
practice Of recurring. II practicahe cohsu,m,'onai
inc Judgment in such case might. II possible T.,
the decision OF the majority Of the whole Sonsl nh m
Briscoe a2t Commonwealth HaiK reiSpS 10 10 M M
cry OF New-Iork agt Min ie'Grs ~ ,,l1; ,,
rule was announced by Mr. chief Justice MARSHALL
in the following language: ,. +. 1000.
OF absolute necessity to deliver any judgment IN
cases where constitutional questions are invOVtL
unless four Judges concur In opinion. mus msK,ns
In the present case. four Judges d. not concur IN
opinion as 70 the constitutional questions % Irnc
these cases 10 t'e reargued at The n'%t term undtr
the expectation mat q larger nhnhei OF 'he JUICES
The same cass wcre asaln called at the n.X term
of the Court and the Chief Justice said that the
Court could know whether there would b"
full Cour, during the term. but, a. the Court was
b. taken up g Peters 81. In note TO the cases
upon that page 1t Is stated mat dHains '2a ba eth ii
Cour, the time being sc'enl; there was Then
Justice Dnval winch hal NOT yc, been hl.cd The
rue laid down 10y Mr. Cnief Justice Marshall has been
cas-. Of The Horc Insurancc company agt New
York lls L. $ l2s. lN. chief Justice Waite
9 S q he S int m OF wan as aR
b. divided Court Al the time Mr. justice Moods
ami took no pa-i in any ~ the cases argued AZ that
term. Ther" were Therefore, only eight Of the mem
cp,c annon~eI by Mi Chief Justice Marshlii should
inYo we'd sufficiently important 10 demand
9fS d %os saa lie Sn's and hc ca.c Was
not rcargued until The whoe bench vas fnll d@'
!.hod IN Ph.irpss Prac,ice al page ~
THRIFT ia Respectfully submitted iha, no CO"
coud arise more imPcrltiye,y recurring the Apt
cation Of the RUE hat The present Inc precise
question oyrd me ~, ~ y, ~ An a
generally That has been held unconstitutional
been auihoIltativcly decided 70 the remaining
portions. Thcse compainnnts AMI app :an's may
should be finally decided before their cSprnls
their funds IN voluntary paymcnt y the AK In
is rcach,. the courts Viii be overwhelmed Win
collection OF the tax VII! be most seriously e!nbir
Ever taxpayer - any considerable cxien' Will
pay the tax under protest AMI sue 20 recover the
back ana II necessary @ue out his writ - error
TO this Court The Court win. Of necessity. he bur
dsned with r@arsuments of thcsc question. whou,
number until they nr" finally s";t"I SUI further.
a tax upon ne income Of land ~ unconstitutional.
validity Of the tax upon income Of personal prop
et;y. Serious questions have. Therefore. ALREADY
income II real estate. ana what Is The Income %;
real AMI what ~ personal property. in cases wH'r"
both are employed in the production OF the "ame
conciusion.-Your petitioner, Therefore. respect.
and a reargument be ordered as to the questions
upon which the court was evenly divided In opinion.
In case however. this motion should be denied.
your petitioners pray that the mandate be amended
by ordering new trial IN ne court below go thst
o. whether or not tho nyal idhy Of the statute In
together invalid. and ~ whether nDt the act Is
constitutional in the respects not decided by 'hls
The undersigned members % The bar Of ,hls
honorable court hnmnly conceive that It f. proper
court. n this court shall see NJ 50 90 order. and
they. therefore. rsspec;fI;lX certify accottdinsy
p n Ii1h,NI;E Il I s nlSii fRH
3iiXHlF N'E 54n2ir
OF counsel FOR appellants.
WaGhngton April -. ls9-.
The case largely relied upon by the counsel FOR
the petitioners FOR a rehear!ng the Home Insur-
ance Company against the state OF New-York- was
presented TO the Supreme Court Of the United
States by Il. II. Bristow for the Insurance com
pany and Attorney Generals Denis OBrIen and
Charles f. Tabor for the state. David Wilcox and
T.. Il. Whitney who took part In the Income tax
cases. were also engaged counsel In the Home
Insurance Company The matter at Issue
there was the constltutonallty OF "A law OF the
state OF New-York assessing tax on the corpor-
ate franchise or business OF corporations doing
business In that state. The graded
cording to the rate Of dividend declared and as
scssed upon the amount OF capital stock. The
Home Insurance Company contonded that no tax
could be laid by the state upon that part OF It's
ca pital stock invested In United States bonds, but
che Supreme Court OF the state said II could. and
an appeal was made to the Supreme Court OF the
United States. The case was argued on October
. 1896 and decided November II following, the
Judgment Of the State Court being affirmed by a
divided court. At that time the court was com
posed 0! Chief-Justce Waite and Associate Jus
tees Miller. Geld, Bradley. Harlan. Woods. Mat
thcps GRAY and Blat hford. hmt becamse OF illness