Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1895-05-02
DIRECT TAX.
Definition OF the Term by CHIEF Justi,
mil

DEFINITION OF the Term by Chief Justice
WASHINGTON, April 26.-The text Of
the opinion Of Chief Justice Fuller in
the income tax case which was .deliy-
cred April was made public Wednes-
day. The opinion is preceded by an
elaborate review of the his
tory Of the case. The opinion
proper is introduced with the
statement that "the constitution pro.
vides that representatives. and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states according to numbers
and that no direct tax shall be laid
except according to the enumeration
provided, and also that all duties. i'm.
posts aud excuses shall be uniform
throughout the United States"
Thus in the matter of taxation the
constitution recognizes the two great
classes Of direct and indirect taxation,
and lays down two rules by which
their imposition must be governed,
namely, the rulesof apportionment as
| to direct taxes and the rule of uni
formity as to duties, imposts and ex-
cises.
BY far the greater part Of the opinion
is devoted to the consideration of the
question whether a tax on rents is a
direct tax within the meaning of the
CONSTITUTION.
The opinion here reviews numerous
decisions under the act of 1861, includ.
ing the Springer case, which was
largely relie' upon by counsel for the
government in the present case to sus
tain their contention. Chief Justice
Fuller says: H.
st Is conceded in all these cases, from tina,
Of Hilton to that Of Springer, that taxes or
land are direct taxes and in none Of then
is 1t determined that taxes on rents or income
derived from land are not taxes on land"
I Summing up, the chief justice says
among other things:
1.-The requirement. of the constitution is tina,
no direct tax shall be laid otherwise than by ap
portlonment. The prohibition Is not against di
rect taxes on land, from which the implication
is sought to be drawn that indirect taxes OF
land would be constitutional, but 1t is against al
direct taxes. and it Is admitted that a tax o,
real estate Is direct tax Unless, therefore
a tax upon rents or incomes issuing on
of lands Is intrinsicaly SO different from
a tax on the land itself that 1t belongs
to q wholly different GLASS of taxes, sucl
taxes must be regarded as falling within
the same category as tax on real estate
go nomine. The name of the tax Is unimpor
tant The real question Is, Is there any bash
upon which to rest the contention that real es
tate belongs to one Of the two great classes o
taxes and the rent, or income. which is thu
incident of its ownership. belongs to the other
| We are unable to perceive any grount
for the alleged distinction. An annual ia!
upon the annual value or annual use of rea
estate appears to US the same in substance a
an annual tax on real estate, which would b.
paid out of the rent or income. This law take
the income received from land and the growth
or produce OF the land
Nothing can be clearer than that what tn,
constitutions intended to guard against was thu
exercise by the general government OF thu
power of directly taxing persons and propert!
| within any state through majority made VI
from the other states.
I'VE are of opinion that the law in question
so far as 1t levies tax on the rents or income
| OF real estate, is In violation OF the constitu
ton and is invalid"
Comparatively brief space is devoted
derived from municipal bonds. TIL,
opinion says.
The tax on government stock Is thought b.
| tnlS court 10 10 LAX on tno cOutract, TAX Oh
| the power to borrow money, ON the credit o
the United States, and consequently TO be re
pugnant to the constitution.
Applying this language to these muplcipa
securities, it Is obvious that taxation on uh
interest therefrom would operate on the powe
to borrow before 1t Is exercised and woul'
| have sensible influence on the contract an,
that the tax In question Is o tax on the powe
of the states and their instrumentalittes t
borrow money. and consequently repugnant t
the constitution.