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

He Considers the Law Valid as to
Rents.
Justice Whites dissent probably re-
Elected in a 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 a United States tax is de-
MED.
3. 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 a person on whom such
tax is levied and who would assert
his constitutional immunity from its
| exaction, is to pay the tax under pro-
test and sue for it's recovery.
4 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
DRY upon which this conten
| ton rests is that as the corpora
| ton is trustee for the stakeholder,
the stakeholder is entitled to have it
enjoined from making this payment.
This contention is, in my judgment,
since its premise is that the stock
| holder, by proceeding against the cor
| poration can do by indirection that
which he cannot do directly.
6. The contention that because the
! complaint is a stakeholder impleading
the corporation, equitable rights super
| vene, is, in my opinion, clearly I'M
sound.
Z. This principle is clearly applicable
| to a United States tax, especially in
| view of the mandatory terms of the
act of congress forbidding an in
| junction.
g. 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 voluntary
| payment, such as would deprive the
stockholder of his legal privilege, is,
I 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 a 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, l 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 IN
sound.
IL. 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 Halves VS..
Oakland, 104 u S. $50. Neither of these
authorities, in my judgment, sustains
the position in support of which it is
cited. The first of these cases involved
| question of state tax, and therefore
was clearly outside of the rule applied
in the case 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-
| ole Of o. Wi he OF
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 OVERRIDE
it's previous decisions in a 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
eminent 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, excuses and imports shall be
uniform throughout the United States
Third-The limitation as to apportion-
ment is not a 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.