New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-16
MORE INCOME TAX RCMOho'
IT Is NOW ASSERTED THAT THE suPhHMH
COURT WILL WIPE OUT THE Law
THE LATEST REPORT IS THAT SIX OR SEVEN
u.srrcrs WILL. DECLARE IT TO BE uNcoN-
TIrrTIoNAI,-MEANwHILE TREASURY

JUSTICES WILL, DECLARE IT TO BE UNcoN-
Observation-Disclosures TREASURY
OFFICIALS ARE ALL At SEA.
frY TELEGRAPH TO THE TluBrNEl
Washington May l5.-As the day on WHO" VIC
decision Of the supreme Court on the INCOME i"N
law draws nearer. gossip about IL grows "''''
lively and each day brings a new crop 'i icP''''
and assertions in regard to the propapi' n''''' -
the decision. Last week the prrVaiilis i''P''
sion was that the entire law would be declared
unconstitutional. ON the first two d"SS "a '''''
week a contrary impression was general. ana To-
day ii is again positively asserted that '"e "'
csion will virtually wipe the law from the statute
book According TO to-day's report at l'aS' S'N
and possibly seven of the members OF the court
have reached the conclusion that the law cannot
be upheld on constitutional grounds. IL - "S-
serted with every appearance II coniii.n nee 'h''
the chief Justice and perhaps ono Of the ASso''''
Justices Dusticc Browm will take occasion "il'n
,hc decision is announced to explain the reasons
which have induced them To- change the Opinions
they held q month ago and also That Ass'''"' -
Iusticr Jacks0n ON Saturday expressed ms oiiil"'
f. the effect that The law Is Unconstitutional
or course Il either If tho. assertions turns 'u'
To he correct. the law viii not stand, I't '''''
has been no intnauon that any one "i ''' ''''"-
bers Of the court who held In Apil thai II WIS
not constitutional has changed his NINA S'h''
that time In view If the unusual and cNI 'l"e
nrecautlons which have been taken to prevent
any inIllius Of IN, nature Of the decision from
reaching the public prior to the Oh ial announce
m.nt II may seem strange that any person mas
the hardihood to make such assctu 'n9 ana S'' II
may Dee that In an unguardcd moment ana IN the
rroscuc. II man whom he believed g. be- "saie
Il member of the court hte dropped an ln''.'h'n'
remark which has enabled differences l" h' ''"N u
which seemed e. Justify the belief that ih' "',
clslon viii bc adverse tp tn constiiuu'h'1'y ~
the law. And chen. again. the ihi'i'"''' mag
turn out t. bee wholly false. ,,.
one thing app .ars 10 Doe pretty certain. am ''''
4, that no Official of the Treasury l'l liriu'"' H"
received any information or lniim"il'h lI"'" ""
official or other s1urD" which be- i.fd ''H ~ u ,,t
y,rtnv as To- what tie nAtur" ~ the a''lsl'n viii
he ON the contrary. the 0fi 0lals "hn are Nl -
directly interested are as much az sea 's are ,n'
persons who are cone rnei as ptonhDlc ~ p'S''"
taxuaycrs and their Impressions vary lI..H ~
:, d,v NF. those az fh. outside Isslls. l. hlhS
AZ he mater from an Official point u N!o" most
II not all ~ them woLld probably prefer - So
tho whole Law con i.un"i IA rYn-N'HN'N ~
grounds than 20 soc 10 stand a. u "is I''i pf ''
supr.rie Court in April In the latter event 10y
/ Irrigation and a constantly swelling ud" ~ i'lI-
lar dis .,uicut dlsarproyal aui resentment 'h "'
count If the enforcement ~ liw Nhl' y ut '',
present form appears more oiiYuS. "h'i'"i "'-'
unjust II p,ss.hi than II tii In iis "ffin'i
shape That tho officers y the Internal hrf'i.s
R.r.au 10 not know what 20 expect ifom th'
Supreme Court is pretty clearly indl'''"l nS
their waiting atflfud. IN regard - inc en-.
mcnt - what remains '' tlr i'" =" -
which VIII not change until afi"r the oe. ~
/ shall have been made pu d.. There seems I'D .'
no Doubt that an uncertainty In regard - N'
matter vii be- removed 30 Monday