Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-21
THE LAW IS INVALID
United States Supreme Court Declares
The Tax Unconstitutional.
SIGH LEVIES ARE DIRECT"
Assessments Upon Taxpayers Because Of
KOnsy.Spendins Power.
THE CHEF JUSTICE'SREMABKS
He Gives a Complete History Of the
Controversy in This Matter.
OPINIONS READ
JustIces Harlan, brown, Jackson
md white for the Enactment ""'
the majority Against it-o'her
Cases Decided Yesterday


states Supreme Court to-day oee'o1' -
,,cone.tax 10 be unconstitutional '"e
court being divided as follows As"''''
40 -Chief-Justice Fuller Justices
r,,,a crav Brewer. and Shiras' for the
,,,.t,ces Harlan, Brown. Jackson
and White.
cblefJustice Fuller read the opinion Of
the court
TN. interest attaching TO all proceedings
IA connection with the income-taN case
was again manifested this morning. when
the supreme-Court room was crowded
because Of the belief that Judgment In the
income-taxes cases would be announced
The interest was heightened by know
ledge Of the fact circulated just Few
moments before the court convened that
As.oclate-Justlce Jackson had returned 10
washington. and would sit on the bench
while the opinion was being delivered
This was altogether surprise ana ms
coming had been so skilfully concealed
that his appearance was necessary 10
convince some people OF It's truth. lie
did not go home. as stated, but spent the
week in Philadelphia in consultation
with a physician. when the Justices came
in and were formally announced by the
crier they were greeted by a dis'ih-
rp,sbcd array Of counsel within the bar
and q throng Of spectators in the portion
OF the chamber set aside for the purpose
AZ on previous similar occasions, large
proportion OF the visitors were LADIES'
ARRAY OF COUNSEL.
The Attorney General and his fun stan
Of assistants. including Solicitor-Generai
Holmes Conrad. occupied their reserved
seats. and az their right was Hon Jane
e. Carter. the eminent New orK counsel
who argued the cases originally win the
Attorney-General In behalf OF the law
Near nv were the Comptroller OF the Urea
surv. MIR. Eckels. rnal-Revenue-Con-
missioner Miller, and other oihcials.
There were also present number OF
Senators and Representatives VINO are IN
the city. and who were interested III the
outcome Of the case.
When the Justices took their seats II
was observed that the Chief had an I'M
usually large bundle Of manuscript IN nus
hands. but nothing was thought or TINS.
Immediately there was sensation lot
ignoring an almost wholly unbroken RUE,
which reserves the announcement or
opinions by the Chief Justice. Justice
FULLER proceeded az once into the income
tax cases lie read his opinion III iuh,
occupylng about an hours Time ana
spoke with an oarnestness that mani
tested the depth of the feeling expressed
ia the opening sentences OF the opinion
CHIEF-JUSTICES REMARKS.
In delivering the opinion In the income
tax cases. Chief-Jusuce Fuller sald'
whenever this court Is required 10
mass upon the validity Of an tGt OF Con-
aresg. as tested by the fundamental law
enacted by the people, the duty imposed
demands In It's discharge the utmost de-
liberation and care, and invokes the
deeuest sense Of responsibility, Ana tnis
4. fspeciauy so when the question in
wolves the exercise Of great govern
mental power. and brings into con"ue'a'
ton. as vitality affected by the uecisloh'
that complex system OF government 50
sapaclousy framed to secure ana per-
petuate AN indestructble union, COM
posed Of indestructible states We have,
therefore. with an anxious desire 10 omit
nothing which might Ia any degree una
10 elucidate the questions submitted, anu
aided by further able arguments, embody-
Ing the fruits Of elaborate researches
carefully examined these cases Win
the result that while our former concur
must be enlarged by the acceptance OF
their loelcal consequences. me very
nature OF the Constitution, as observer
~ ChIef-Iuetico Marshall In one OF ms
greatest judgments. requires That IT'S
great outlines should be marked It's I'M
portant obi cts designated, and the minor
ingredients which compose those opJec,s
be doduced from the nature OF the Cd
jects themselves.
must not forget that II is a Constitution
that W are exposing
TWO GREAT CLASSES.
As heretofore stated. the Constitution
divided Federal taxation into two great
classes-the class Of direct taxes and me
class OF duties imposts, and excises-
and prescribed two rules which Qualihed
tbe grant OF power 10 each class. Inc
toyyer 10 lay direct taxes, apporuoheu
among the several States IN proportion 10
their repr sentation In the popular praneh
of Ccngress. a representation pdscu y"
incubation. as ascertained by the census
- ,ienarv and absolute, but 10 lay
direct taxes without apportonment was
f1rbt6den The power 20 lay duties. I'M
r,sta and tXcises was SUBJECT 10 the
qualification that the imposition must
be Uniform throughout the Jnited S'ate9'
.Our previous decision was confined 10
The consideration Of the validity OF the
tax on the income from real estate anu
on the income from municipal Donus.
The question thus limited was Whelher
such taxation was direct or not, IN the
meaning of the Constitution, ana the
csurt went further. as 20 the tax on lhe
income on real estate. than to holn that
Il feil within the class as the souIVc
whence the income was derived-that ~
that a tax upon the realty ana TAX upon
the receipts therefrom were alike olrect,
while as TO the income from munlclpal
bonds. that could not be taxed because OF
want Of power to tax the source ana no
reference was made TO the nature OF the
tax as being direct or indirect.
BROADER INQUIRY.
1--WE are now permitted 10 broaden the
field Of INQUIRY. and TO determine as TO
which OF the two great classes tax
upon a PERSONS entire income, whether
derived from rents or products or other
wise. Of real estate or from bonds, Stocks,
or other forms Of personal property be-
longs. and We are unable TO conclude that
The enforced subtraction from the yield
Of all the owners OF real or personal pro-
perry in the manner prescribed Is so
different from q tax upon the properly
itself that 10 Is not a direct, but an IN
direct tax, in the meaning OF the Con-
sttution.
I'VE know o. no reason for holding
otherwise. than that the words direct
taxes on the one hand. and duties Inn
posts. and excuses on the other. were
used In the Constitution in their natural
ana obvious sense. nor. IN arriving az
what those terms embrace, do we perceive
any ground for charging them or mar
rowing them within their natural and OBJ
Nious import az the time the Constitution
Vas framed and ratified
And. passing from the text we re-
gar1 the conclusion reached as inevitable.
"ten the circumstances which surround
81 The Constitution and controlled It's
ec'ion and the views Of those who framed
ana those who adopted the Constitu-
Ton We're considered. We do not care 10
iei'aye ground already travelled. bat
",iAe observations may be added"
me chief Justice then reviewed the his
y u the struggle In the constitutional
,tf'hlon as 10 the power 20 be granted
government in laying taxes, the writ
lss early constitutional writer's ana
,r4lpfe, and continued:
oy, ~ Prohibits any direct tax unless IN
~ Ssillon % numbers AZ ascertained by
c,rs'a.ses' and IN the light OF the err
A ess 10 which we have referred
NSs an evasion Of that prohibition 10