The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-18
rs IT A DIRECT IMPOsT?
Vast Import of the Stand
Taken by the Chief
Justice.
PROPERTY ILLEGALLY TAXED.
Under the New Exposition of the
Constitution Vast Sums Should
Be Refunded.

WASHINGTON, D. c., April 1.-THE
Acknowledgement to-day filed IN the
United States Supreme Court memoran-
dun for the consideration of the Justices.
giving the Governments view on the petit
ton for a rehearing OF the income tax
question filed by the opponents OF the law.
The memorandum is as follows:
Charles Pollock, appellant, VS.. the Farm
ers Loan and Trust Company ct al;
Lewis H. Hyde, appellant, VS.. the Cont
mental Trust Company of the city of New
York ct al ; on petition for rehearng.
The United States respectfully repre-
sents that if a hearing is granted in the
above entitled case the rehearing should
cover all of the legal and constitutional
questions involved, and not merely those
as to which the court is equally divided.
First-Whether the tax on incomes gen.
orally. inclusive of rents and interests or
dividends from investments of all kinds, is
or is not direct tax within the meaning
of the Federal constitution, is a matter
upon which, in the original question,
the Government has really never been
heard. Its position at the time of
argument was that the question had been
settled by an exposition of the constitu-
ton practically cOntemporaneOus with its
adoption; by a subsequent unbrOken line
of judicial presidents; by cOncurring and
repeated action of all departments of the
Government, and by the consensus of all
text writer's and authorities by whom the
subject heretofore has been considered.
Second-The Importance to the Govern
ment of the new views on its taxing power
announced in the opinion of the Chief Jus
tice can hardly be exaggerated. First,
pushed to their logical conclusion, they
practically exclude from direct operation
all the real estate of the country and all
its invested personal property. They ex-
clude it because II realty and personally
are taxed only by rules of apportionment,
the inevitable inequalities resu lting from
such plan of taxation are so gross and
fragrant as to absolutely debar any resort
to it.
That such inequalities must result is
practically admitted, the only suggestion
in reply being that the power directly tax
ing realty and personal property was not
meant for use as an ordinary, everyday
power; that the United States was ex-
pected to rely for its customary revenues
upOH OullSSi III pOSJS anu CAUSES, anu
that it was meant that it should
impose direct taxes only in extraor-
binary emergencies, and as sort of
final resort. 1t is admitted that the con-
stitution on a question of such vital i'm
portance in itself, and requiring for its sup
port an imputation to its trainers of specific
purposes which nothing in the text Of the
constitution has any tendency to reveal,
cannot be too carefully considered before
being finally adopted.
Secondly, though OF minor Importance,
it is certainly relevant to point out that if
this new exposition of the constitution re-
ferred to is to prevail the United States
has, under previous income-tax laws, col
lected vast sums of money which, on every
principle OF justice, it ought to refund, and
which it must be assumed Congress will
deem itself bound to make provision for
refunding by appropriate legislation. Re-
spectfully submitted,
RICHARD OLNEY, Attorney General.