St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-09
JUSTICE WHITE DIssENTs.
He Considers the Law Valid as TO
Rents.


Rents.
Justice Whites dissent probably re-
| f1ected in considerable measure the
views which would have been promul-
gated had the court sustained the law
substantially as a whole. Concerning
| the form in which the cases came be-
| fore the court, he said:
l. The suit cannot be maintained
because it's real object is to enjoin the
| collection of a tax.
2. By the text of the statute of the
United States the right to enjoin the
payment of United States tax is de-
MED.
8. BY adjudications of this court,
from the foundation of the govern
ment until the present time, it has
been held that a United States court
will not enjoin the payment of tax due
the United States and that the proper
proceeding for person on whom such
a tax is levied and who would assert
his constitutional immunity from it's
exaction, is to pay the tax under pro-
test and sue for its recovery.
and 5. The claim here is that the
relief sought is not an injunction
against the collection of the tax, but
an injunction against it's payment
by the corporation. The the
ory upon which this conten-
ton rests is that as the corpora
ton is a trustee for the stockholder,
the stockholder is entitled to have it
enjoined from making this payment.
This contention is, in my judgment,
ABSOLUTELY. UNSOUND,
~.
holder, by proceeding against the cor
poration can do by indirection that
which he cannot do directly.
g. The contention that because the
complaint is stockholder impleading
the corporation, equitable rights super
vene, is, in my opinion, clearly un-
sound.
Z. This principle is clearly applicable
to United States tax, especially in
view of the mandatory terms of the
act of congress forbidding an in
| junction.
8. The assertion that the claim
| here asserted is not of a right to have
| the corporation enjoined from paying
| the tax, but simply of a right to have
an injunction against a voluntary
payment, such as would deprive the
! stockholder of his legal privilege, is,
| think a mere Subterfuge.
9. If the purpose of this bill is to
prevent voluntary payment, then the
case gives rise to no necessity for de-
| termining the constitutionality of the
| law.
10. In such a case, the proper remedy
| is writ of mandamus to compel the
| corporation to conform to the duty of
| paying under protest, so as to preserve
| the right of suing to recover. This rem
| edy could be resorted to, and, take it,
| would be allowed without deciding the
question of
CONSTITUTIONAL
II. This being true, the theory here
| adopted that it is necessary to pro-
| nounce upon the constitutionality of
the law in order to protect the rights of
| the stockholders seems to me to be un-
| sound.
II. The only decision referred to in
| the opinion as supporting the conclu-
sion reached by the court are Dodge VS..
! Woolsey, Is How, 331, and Hawes vs.
Oakland 104 US. 45O Neither of these
| authorities, in my judgment, sustains
! the position in support of which it is
CllSQ L ne III SI VI lilSSS CeSSS lilF OlNGu
a question of state tax, and therefore
was clearly outside of the rule applied
| in the ease of United States taxes. The
second case was controversy between
| a stockholder and a corporation re-
garding the administration of corporate
affairs. 1t involved no question Of tax
alton whatever, and therefore the de-
| cision did not deal at all with the act
of congress or the enforcement of the
| continuous line of decisions of this
court, holding that it will not restrain
| the payment of tax or allow relief in
| the premises until the party had paid
| and issuing redress for suing for re-
| covery.
| 13. 1t seems to me that the court
OUGHT NOT TO OVERRULE
| it's previous decisions in matter of
this kind, especially when the result of
| so doing is to strike down an act of
! congress, and deny the existence of a
power of taxation in the federal gov
ernment which has been recognized by
this court for many years.
| On the merits of the act, he made
the following points:
! First-The government of the United
States possesses plenary powers of tax
| ation-all powers which belong to any
| government as such-subject only to
the limitation imposed by the consti-
tuition in forbidding the levying of
| an export tax.
| Second-This power, unlimited itself
is limited as to form by the require
ment that direct taxes shall be ap-
portioned according to population, and
duties, excises and imports shall be
uniform throughout the United States.
| Third-The limitation as to apportion-
ment is not limitation on the power Of
| taxation, but a limitation of the man
| ner In which the powers shall be exer-
| cised. -
Fourth-Whether a federal income
tax. is direct or indirect does not de-
pend alone upon the theories of econo-
Continued on Third Page.