The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-09

The law violated every right and conf
~ Guaranteed under the Constitution.
That there should be any doubt about
tho subiect surpassed his comprehension.
10 tho census figures did not convince one
~ the magnitude and injustice OF the
exemptions granted, he did not think
Congress could be convinced. tnoush one
rose from the dead" to convince H. Inc
law was also invalid, In that II leVle1
tar upon the salaries of the lol judges
of the United States, many Of whom re-
ceived small salaries. II the provisions
~ the Constitution could be set aside
Nv the arbitrary act Of Congress,
where. he asked would this power end?
II was but the steppingistone TO otner
and greater acts, which would eventual
lv open the way for war between the
moor and the rich. Such power as
sumed by Congress and permitted to go
unchallenged would mark the hour When
the decadence OF the nation would COM
mence. IL the limit OF the exemption
could be fixed at 5000 future Congresses
might fix it at $1,000 or $4,000. thus COM
nelliug one class alone 10 pay the tax
ar the limit might be fixed at an amount
as board Of walking delegates
might demand to be necessary.
In conclusion, Justice Field announced
his opinion that the whole law OF 1884
should be declared to be null and void.
JUSTICE WHITES VIEWS.
Justice White prefaced his dissenting
opinion with the statement tnat the GUS
tom Of rendering long dissents IN court
of last resort was more hohored III the
breach than in the observance. lheH
only effect was TO weaken the elllcltncy
Of tbs opinion OF the court. Justice White
said he should not speak to-day out LOT
and set aside established precedents, ana
fhe settled and uniform doctrine OF the
Supreme Court down TO the present tihe'
he regretted that at this late day TINS
court should thus overthrow ana nuliiiy
an act OF Congress, supported ana az
nrmed By all text writer's, and by every
decision Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States. When the fathers con-
structed our form of government they
gave IL. not limited but unlimited power
IN levy taxes with but one exception
that Of taxing exports The assertion
that the constitutional power OF Congress
was limited. was. ne thought, the fundn-
mental error IN the reasoning OF the ma
iority of this court. The great question
before the court was. is the income tax
a direct tax? That question was practl-
cally decided hundred years ago, ana
he did not deem IL necessary to enter
an elaborate review OF the cases mat
had been decided.
Briefly reviewing the case presented 10
the court. he observed that the argument
made and he citations used IN this case
were the -Ie as those brought out IN
the Byton ca se and now this court was
asked 10 again take up the question ad-
Indicated by unanimous court nun
drcd years ago.
Justice Harlan was Of the opinion that
a tax on gains, profits and income de-
rived from the rent of lands was not
a direct tax; that under numerous dect-
sions of this court the income derived
from municipal bonds was not the sub
iect of specific taxation In any form by
the United States. In other matters he
WAS i'm accord with Justice White.
At 235 the court concluded the read
ing of opinions.
HOW The COURT STOOD.
Upon the question OF the constitutional
itv Of incomes from State and municipal
bonds the court was unanimously in the
negative.
Upon the question OF the taxation OF
rerts the court stood:
Affirming the law. Justices Harlan and
WI ite.
Against the law: Chief-Justice Fuller,
j stices Field. Gray. Brewer Brown. and
Shras.
Upon the general question of the con-
stitutiOnality Of the law the court IS
said to be divided as follows:
For: Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown,
and White.
Against: Chief-Justicc Fuller, Justices
Field GRAY. and Shlrag.