New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09
TILE INCOME Tx DECISION

THE INCOME 1AA DECISION.
The Supreme Court has not done Itself credit
by it's failure TO decide as 10 the consututonality
Of the income tax. and yet has practically taken
the life out Of that offensive law. By deciding
that incomes derived from bonds Of States and
mathematics cannot be taxed, and that incomes
derived from rents of real estate cannot be taxed,
II has not only thrown the whole machinery for
enforcing the law into confusion when, with only
q week remaining for the filing of statements 1t
will be practically impossible to get the work re-
Ouircd by the law done within the prescribed
time. but has deprived Government of large
mart of the revenue expected. and the advocates
of the law Of their greatest reason for desiring
il Then by failing TO reach any decision on the
main ouesticn as TO the consttutionality Of tho
act. il has practically invited deluge of suits
70 rcsis, the enforcement of the law as n whole.
or 70 test particular provisions OF it, and has left
The lower courts TO render any lumber OF con-
flcting decisions on these points.
This is ANYTHING but a crediable result 1t
was something very like public duty 10 reach
conclusion. If four believe a law entirely uncon-
stitutisnal while four others believe that some
parts Of it are unconstitutional, il would seem
that any body Of eight men might conclude that
the act as whole ought 10 be set aside as an i'm
proper exercise of legislative power. To leave
parts of it in force. breeding lawsuits by the hun
dred thousand, only because the eight men would
not decide either way, was not performance
worthy Of trained intellccts 1t IS admitted
moreover that several OF the four Justices who
voted 10 sustain the act nevertheless believed II
unconstitutional, but set aside their own convic-
tons for 10 better reason than that the Court
many years ago held that different act, enacted
under entirely different conditions. was conStltu-
tional Starting thus, the Court reached n find
ing which is as near an abdcatiOn of its power
TO interpret the Constitution and confession or
its unfinesS for that duty, as anything well can
be- Men will ask by what strange mental stra-
bisnus eminent Judges, sworn 10 interpret the
Constitution and the laws according to their hon
est CONVICTIONS are able 10 vote that an act IS
constitutional which they believe not constitu-
,ional because under different circumstances it
was so held by predecessors in office who
have been gathered to their fathers? 1t Is Just
this devotion 10 technicalitcs and precelcnts,
when plainly against duty, which has gone so far
TO make courts less respected by many honest
and law-abiding citizens.
If # had been IAN original question" IL IS
stated, nearly all the Justices would have de-
cidcd the act unconstitutional. But when some
set themselves to save part Of the law while hold
ing other parts invalid they became involved In
homeless confusion Incomes derived from rents
cannot be taxed the Court decides but by what
strange device Of legal injustice can the gains
| of n farmer realized by labor on his land be
held taxable? Is the landlord sacred, and only
| labor to be taxed? SO when a Justice urged that
| savings banks and mutual insurance companies
could not be exempted without violating the con
slitutional provision against unequal taxation,
and found the ma jOrity holding that the Court
! had no power TO impose a tax, and therefore no
! power TO declare an exemption invalid, il would
/ have seemed 10 plain people, and 10 many law
/ vers an irresistible conclusion that an act CON
! tanning unconstitutional features, so woven in
that they could not be gotten out Of II, must il
! self be held unconstitutional as whole.
Thousands Of suits will spring from the at
tempt to apply the principles which the Court
has enunciatcd. The practical difficulty OF deter
mining in either Of many thousand cases likely
! 10 arise how far the income Of an individual or
a CORPORATION is derived from bonds, or from
rents would have been with many a sufficient
reason for holding that the whole act must fail
with features when form practically inSepa-
rable part Of II. The cost 10 the Government ana
10 the citizens Of this lgatOn-brecding unccT-
tainty does not seem to have been considered, nor
the fact that n law cannot be expected TO yield
much except expense to the Government, when
it is known that half the Justices on the Supreme
bench held 1t entirely unconstitutional While al
most any new point raised may lead one OF the
other four TO join them. 1t IS the GROWING dis
grace of the party now in power. and Of the Pres
ident who permitted the income tax to become a
law, that every Democratic Justice present held
parts Of the measure, and two Of the three held
the whole Of IT, unconstitutional But for This
fragrant violation Of the Constitution. which the
President himself suggested 1t would not have
been possible to pass the Tariff bill. Men WHO
believed, even when they voted for 1t. that the
income tax would be stamped out by the courts
nevertheless consented to il for the sake Of party