New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-21
JUSTICE JACKSON'S VIEW.

| disscn, from the opinion and judgment OF the
Court
JUSTICE JACKSONS VIEW.
Mr. Justice Brown also had dissenting opinion
to read but gave way to his associate justice
Jackson. that the latter might announce his
views.
Much interest attached "a the expression or inc
views OF Justice Jackson. He spoke IN SLOW
roooeure and at tines his tone almost in
distinct At the conclusion OF his OPINION wnich
occupei forty-hve minutes in its delivery, JUS
ticc Jackson. whose strength was greatly spent
bv the train Of speaking. retired from the court
r,o,o AVID won't on the first train Il Philadelphia
where he spent the last week undergoing treat
mon, nv DIR william Pepper In his opinion JUS
ticc Jackson said:
am unable 10 S y,e' case Ny strength has not
Seen eqiaI to the task Of preparing iorniai u,.
concnr ;ii,v IN the iissenis expressed by justice
White on the former hearing ana 10y tn1 h-S on,
,,hn viii dissent now. ami Will ony adl d prl'i o.u
line of my views upon the main questions p'''e'
am am o5od be borne in mind It 81 not and cannot
be- denied that Under the broad ana coinprehehshse
taxu: power conferred by the eS'satonh y' 20
lax incomes from whatsoever source arlslhs ,nr
from real sstate Or ,ba corress IN the
rs ., This authority has the discretion TO liposs
Tho TAX upon incomes aoogT , ossion now pre-
Incl is whc,her the taxation q incomes receive
from land ami personally are subject 10 inc '''' -
Thr lsci.i5n of the court holding the Income Tax
la, ~, ,'s,,r, isei void f. based upon the f9'o"
,, ,,ro,,,aI,ions. First that tax upon real a'li
pefs5ns property direct tax within ne mo" he
,,,7i mis-, bn app1ronel among the several STATS
according - their respective lopu1i 80,
mat the Incomes derived realized from suGh prop
ertv are an nseparabe incident thereof ana so ,ar
partakc 81 the natur. 81 the ,o,inr az the
,.,,erfv Itself From these premises the conclusion
i reached that tax on incomes arising I'm I'm or,a
-, - AL rorronal property Is subject 10 the sdii'
ma 80 ,,ror,lonnlen, % a tax laid directly on the
property tsef and. not being 80 iiposS y; ,.ionoi
30 ia. bv fhn RUE numbers. Is uncohsutut
-. ~ - 1hiri that the invad!ty % the tax on
incomes from real and personal prcPer osys TAX
tabiished the remaining portions o.. the I'm tha,
law a., also void notwthsianing ,he III ' ~
such remaining portions c1s' d,ics or excuses in
rs,ect 20 which the rule Of apportionrent mas no
application. but which are cohUo"su anu 'ee"'1N
by the rue OF uniformity
c,xXOv UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE.
II il no, found and could not be properly found
no ,he court that there IS any want Of uniformity
IN this leyslation In the other provisions or the
law there Is not found. and could no, be- say.
any such lack OF uniformity as would De SUM
ciont to render these remaining lrovisons ,Vai
connection between the class or incomes WnIch
the court holds to be within thS rue , %, Inc RUE
- Uniformity and | cannot understand me pr'h-
clpc upon which The Court reaches the yad or
SS reason that the is pot lad by the TpIe Of
@ppoopmen It hereSy o dc so rule ana o nnformty
and in respect to which here Is no valid onjec'oA'
r the conclusion Of the Court on this mira propo,
s,tion is sound the principle upon which IL rests
could with equal p.opricys be $50. N''"'e' ~ ''''
I shall not dwell upon these considerations; they
have been fully elaborated by Jus'',e ian an.
There is lust as much room for the assuinplloil
,hat congress would not have passed the customs
hranches OF the law without the provision taxing sh
th.y would not have passed the revision relating
TO incomes resting upon me rue "t Iii 40 ANN,
sometimes defca, constitutional provisions wnere
they are essentially and insepArapy eomneClsu M
valid part without, giving effect 70 me inVana
portion put Whom the Vaa anH d"penient UPON
each other considerations. cohd'tlous OF .o.i.
DSnf n6 @a9 5Sf sa of s TT "
are never. especially In revenue avs ue''eu rUa
is illustrated In numerous decisions OF this Court
and Of the highest courts OK the states aaNe
single act imposing a tax upon ali railroads taking
nm freight without the state ard bringing II within
ried without II came before this Court. and this
Court decided that the valid and the inya,d prhra
cHtre act n2usn cS,ad bv Mr. Justice Harlan
in addition and besides those come TO the case
o. HatMnf IN ~ sS' where ohio had levied
tax on The receipts of the tie graph company ard
the contention made IN the record ana IN
ms S1r' commorce the act was wholly
But this Court answered TO. So In the other cases
and last in Field ag; Clark. ii3 l.. $. where the
Court said: Unless 1t be impossible to AVOID H. q
general revenue statute should never De declared
imperative In all its parts because par''cuiar
be invalid 4 different rule might be disastrous
10 the financial operations of the Government ard
produce the utmost confusion in the business OF
the entire country.
Her, the distinctions between the two branches OF
me Income Tax law are entirely scparabic. They
rest upon different rules one can DC enforced WIN,
out the other: and to hold that the alleged Invalid
portion 4 invalid shS%d w 9rsl think Ia" enrev
erroneous wholly unsupported either upon prin-
clpc authority.
WHAT Is DIRECT TAX?
In considering the question whether n tax on In
comes from real or personal estate Is direct tax
within the meaning OF those words as employed in
the Constitution, shall not enter upon any dis
cusson Of the decisions OF this Court commencing
with the Hylon case In lso ana shm n WIN ,h s s
nro,aI of those decisions by the great law writer's
OF the country and by all the commentators on the
Constitution will dwell upon the lonS-con-
tinued practice Of the Government In compliance
with the principle laid down IN those decisions.
They in my Judgment settle and conclude this
question now before the Court. contrary 10 the
present decision But II they do not settle. they
certainly raise such n doubt on the subject as
unconstitutional No rue or canon OF construction
Is better settled than that this Court VIII not de-
clare Invalid statuts pasi n 10y ,Dor ners
presu mption should be made. unless Its repugnancy
TO the Constitution IL Gear beyond a reasonable
doubt In Ogden against Sander this Court said
the mere fact OF a doubt sufficient to prevent
the Court from declaring the act unconstitutional
and that language In sups.anGs ~ rcpeated IN ,ne
norris where tho opinion OF the Court given by
chief Justice Waite, who said that the act must be
beyond al GO e9 declare 10 De-
I object TO the opinion of the Court in this case