The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1895-04-17
VOLUME Az.

l Il. That q tax on rents was O tax: on
real estate, and that not being laid ac-
cording to apportionment, it was in
valid. s.s q
] 9. That it was not uniform and u
violation Of the constitutional require.
ment that such taxes shall be laid with
uniformity. Under this head came the
exceptions in favor of those persons
who were not in possession Of an in
como of $4,000; of mutual insurance
Icompallies, savings banks, and part
nerships, al organized for and doing
the same business as that Of corpora
tions authorized by the States. These
exceptions, it was held, were arbitra-
ry and capricious, and not based upon
sound public policy.
8. That incomes from investments
IN State and municipal bonds could
| not be taxed.
The Chief Justice proceeded to a
consideration of the constitutional ro-
quirements with respect of the imposi-
ton of the two forms of taxation, di-
rect and indirect, and said that the
| trainers Of the Constitution intended
to make the consent of those who
were expected to pay essential to the
validity Of any tax. They had just
come out of a conflict upon the great
principle Of taxation with representa-
ton and they were intended to go to-
gether- that Congress should 50 i'm
pose q TAX that it would fall with even
forco and effect upon all Of the con
stituents of those who voted for it.
The States represented in tho Con
stitutionnl Convention, said the Chief
Justice surrendered their right to levy
imposts, excises and duties to the
| General Government They looked
Toward to tho time when great States
to tho west Of them would be coming
into the Union, and when they gave
up that right they did SO with conf
dence that the rule Of uniformity
would be observed in the laying of
taxes by the Congress.
TIE first question to be considered,
! said Chief Justice Fuller, was whether
or not a tax OH rents is direct tax
tlon. 1t had always been held, he
said, that a tax on estate, real or per.
sonal, was a direct tax, but il might
be that the Constitution had q differ
ent meaning, and that it was to be ap.
piled to this case. In that view it be-
came necessary TO inquire what were
direct taxes at the time the Constitu-
| ton was adodtcd.
The Chief Justice then made cxtcn-
siyo quotations from the history Of the
debates in the Congress on the subject
Of taxation. The Inference from them
he said, was that the general distinc-
ton between direct and indirect taxa
ton was we'll understood by the mem
bers Of the Convention, and that the
expectation was that a direct tax would
be the last resort of Congress.
The celebrated case of Hyton VS. the
United States decided March 3, 1896,
was then referred to at great length,
the one III which it was held that d
tax on carriages was not direct tax.
The several opinions filed by the Jus
| tees were quoted, and Mr.. Chief Jus
. tice Fuller asserted that III mono ol
them was there any expression ofopin'
ION as TO whether or notanything cx.
copt land and capitalization taxes was
a direct tax, but they were confined tC
tho case at hand. Tho case, he said
+ seemed to turn upon the declaration
Of Hamilton us to what constituted di
rect taxes; if there had been a refer
ence to tho decisions of the country
from which the United States derived
its jurisprudence it would have beer
fatal, form Great Britain income taxes
had always bcen treated as direct taxes
The opinion then proceeded TO re
view the decisions made by the Su
prcme Court in cases arising under
the law Of 1861, which, the Chief JUS
tlcc said, counsel had cOntended declar-
ed that an income tax was not direct
tax and must bo regarded as controll-
ing IN the case under review. The
principle of stare decisis, he continued,
applied only to such cases as are di-
rectly in point. No Court had ever
held itself bound by any part Of dc
clslon notnecessary to decide the case
before 1t. The duty of any Court
charged with the construction Of con
stltutlonal provisions was not to ex-
tend decision on question if an or
ror OF principle was likely thereby to
be pcrpetuatcd or committed. In the
light of these observations the opinion
considered the decisions down to that
IN the Springer case and concluded
that they were all distinguishablc
from the one in hand.
The Springer case was no exception
to the rule, inasmuch as it did not
present the point raised in this case, is
; q tax on rents tax on real estate? The
Court, the opinion continued, was ull
able to see tny distinction between q
tax on real estate and a tax on the
rents arising from such real estate
What is land but the income thereof
was asked. The constitutional require.
ment was that direct taxes should be
among a 0ntKE KEo states Dy apportlGnm0n, aaeordng to
population, and this tax was
d direct tax. Thcro was no distinc.
ton between an annual tax on the
value Of the land and tax on the land
itself Constitutional provisions, il
was said, could not be thus evaded
it was the substance and not the form
or shadow, that was to prevail in con
STRUNG them. Upon this point there
were many decisions, and some OF
them were quoted
i What the Constitution intended tc
prevent, said the Chief Justice, was
that no tax should be laid on the resi-
dents Of any State by the representa-
tives of other States. The exercise ol
the power 10 levy direct taxes was tc
be restricted to extraordinary occasions
In conclusion, therefore, upon thi.
point the Chief Justice announced
that the Court were Of the opinion
that that part of the law imposing
taxes upon rents obtained from rea
estate was invalid.
Next in order tho opinion consider
ed the third objection to the law
That itimposcd tax upon the income.
!. derived from investments in State ant