The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-09
FLAWS IN THE LAW.
Concluded from First Page.)

Complainant is a ~stockholder, impleading
the corporation, equitable 1t, ! Die rights lgaos,n sHpervene'
plicable to a United States tax. especially
in view of the mandatory terms of the act
of Congress forbidding an Injunction.
"Eighth-The assertion that the claim
here asserted is not Of a right to have nav tn tine
but simply of a right to have an injunction
against a voluntary payment, such as
privileges, I think a mere subterfuge
"Ninth-If the purpose OF this bIil is 10
gives rise to no necessity for determining
the constitutionality of the law.
"Tenth-In such a case the proper remedy
is a writ of mandamus to compel the cor
poration to conform to the duty Of paying
under protest, SO as to preserve the right
orffsssrrinng to to recover ang t Tbs i, remedy 1soIld could pe a De
lowed, without deciding the question of
constitutionality.
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 be unsound.
'Twelfth-The only decisions referred to
in the opinion as supporting the conclusion
sey, IS How, 331, and Halves VS.. Oakland,
104 u. S., $50. Neither of these authorities
in my judgment, sustains the position in
these cases involved a question of State
tax, and. therefore, was clearly outside
of the rule applied in the case of United
States taxes. The second case was a con-
troversy between a stakeholder and a cor
poration in regard to the administration of
corporate affairs. 1t involved no question
of taxation whatever, and, therefore. the
decision did not deal at all with the act
tinuous line of decisions of this court, hold
ing that 1t will not restrain the payment of
AK or allow relief in the premises until
for suing for recovery.
"Thirteenth-It seems to me that the
court ought not to overrule it's previous
decisions in a. matter of this kind aCnp-
cially when the result of so doing is to
strike down an act of Congress and deny
federal government which has been rec-
ognized by this court for many years.
MERITS OF THE LAW.
On the merits of the act, Justice White
made the following points:
"Ffrst-The government of the United
States possesses plenary powers of taxa.
tion-all powers which belong to any gov
eminent as such-subject only to the linz
itation imposed by the Constitution in for
bidding the levying of an export tax.
"Second-This power. unlimited in itself.
that direct taxes shall be apportioned ac-
cording to. population. and duties. excuses
and imports shall be uniform throughout
~"Third-The limitation as to apportion-
ment is not a limitation on the power of
in which the power shall be exercised.
'Fourth-Whether a federal income tax
is direct or indirect does not depend alone
upon the theories of economists. but upon
the sense in which these words are usec
in the Constitution, as heretofore inter-
preted.
.Fffth-Shortly after the Constitution
was framed Q79D Congress put a construc-
ton on these words by imposing a tax on
carriages. The act was passed By a large
majority, and was approved by Washing
ton.
..Sixth-The above act was considered by
this court in the Hilton case. in III Dallas,
and it's constitutionality was maintained,
the reasoning of all the Judges clearly
showing thai the word direct in the Con>
stitution had a technical meaning.
"Seventh-From the date of hat decision
ers on the Constitution have agreed that
canoe to the word direct as used in the
Constitution; and it is by reason of this
peculiar Significance that Ii has been set
tied that an income tax may be levied by
the federal government
"Eighth-The significance attached to the
word direct in the Constitution by this
court nearly a hundred years ago was
acquiesced in and adopted by the ,other de-
of the government.
.'Ninth-From 1861 to 1868 many acts were
passed by Congress 1eyylng an income tax.
These acts imposed q tax on incomes from
every source. They were passed by over
whelming majorities, and their enactment
demonstrates the consensus Of opinion re-
garding the effect of the Interpretation of
the Constitution made by this court many
years before.
.-sTenth-Every case in the lower courts
Involving the validity OF these laws which
] can find was decided In their favor"