The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1895-04-09
THIS ONE IS OFFICIAL
Decision Of the Supreme Court
in the Income Tax
Cases.
IT is READ BY JUSTICE FULLER
Rents and Income From State,
County and Municipal
Bonds Exempt.

WASHINGTON, April 9.-The anx-
iously awaited decision of the United
States supreme court in the income tax
was rendered by Chief Justice Fuller.
The court knocked out the law SO far as
it taxed incomes derived from rents
and also from state county and munich
pal bonds. BY a tie vote of the court
the law was sustained in other respects.
The courts conclusions after review
ing the historical and other phases OF
the question were as follows:
In Charles Pollock versus the Farm
ers Loan and Trust company ct al. 1t
is established:
/. That by the constitution federal
taxation is divided into two great
classes-direct taxes and duties, imposts
and excuses.
?. The imposition of direct taxes is
governed by the rule Of apportionment
among the several states, according to
numbers and the imposition OF duties,
imposts and excuses by the rule OF uni
formity throughout the United states.
3. That the principle that taxation
and representation together was in
tended to be and was preserved i II the
constitution by the establishment OF the
rule of apportionment among the sew
eral states, so that such apportionment
should be according to numbers i'll each
etate.
4. That the states surrendered their
power to levy imposts and to regulate
commerce to the general government
and gave it the concurrent power to
levy direct taxes in reliance on he pro-
lection afforded by the rules prescribed,
and that the compromises OF the consti
tuition cannot be disturbed by Legislative
action.
s. That these conclusions result from
the text of the constitution, and are
supported by the historical evidence
furnished by the circumstances sur
rounding the framing and adoption OF
that instrument and the views of those
who framed and adoptedit.
6. That the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time of the adoption O.
the constitution was that direct take.
would not be levied upon the genera
government, except under the pressure
of extraordinary exigency and such ha:
been the practice down to Aug. Is
1891. If the power to do so is to be ex
ercised as an ordinary and usual mean
of supply, that fact furnishes an add
tional reaso1hfor circumspection in dis
\ posing Of the present case.
/. That taxes III real estate belong
to the class of direct taxes, and that tn
taxes on the rent or income of real es
tate, which is the incident Of its own
ership, belong to the same class.
8. That by no previous decision Q
this court has this question been adju
dicated to the contrary of the conclu
sions now announced.
9. That so much of the act of Aus
Is, 1894, as attempts to impose a ia
upon the rent or income of real estat
! without apportionment is invalid.
The court is further of opinion tina
the act of Aug. Is, 1894, is invalid s
far as it attempts to levy a tax upo
the income derived from municips
bonds. As a municipal corporation
the representative of the state and on
of the Observation-Disclosures Of the stat
government, the property and revenue
of municipal corporations are not sui
iects of federal taxation, nor is the il
come derived from state, county an
municipal securities, since taxation Q
the interest therefrom operates On tt