Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1895-04-09
THEY BREAK EVEN.
Supreme Court Jurists a Tie on
the Income Tax.
no DECISION ON MAIN QUESTION.

There Eeing Four Who Believe the Tax,
Unconstitutional and Four Who Hold
Opposite Views-The Law as n Whole
Therefore Stands, bot Incomes from
Rents and STATE, County and Municipal
Bonds Are Exempted-Synop.is Of the
Points Decided-Dissenting Views of
Field, White and Harlan.
WASHINGTON, April 9-After almost a
month OF deliberation the United States
supreme court rendered its decision yes
terday in the income tax cases. deciding
by divided court the law to be valid, ex-
cept regarding the incomes derived from
rents and from certain bonds, On
which point the decision was that the tax
was unconstitutional. The interest which
had characterized the case from the be-
ginning was made manifest by an un-
usual attendance of people in the court
room- the space is limited az best. but
every available seat inside and outside
the bar was occupied, and many were
turned away because the chamber could
not accommodate all who applied for al
mission.
Absence of jackson Made a Tie.
There was only one member of the
bench absent-Justice jackson, who has
not been able to attend upon the court
since last fall and who has not partici-
pated in the consideration OF the case in
any way. Il is to his absence that the
even division of the court on the majority
of the propositions involved in the case is
due. II he had been present such re-
suit would have been impossible, and the
opinion would have included a decision of
all the points involved instead of only the
two. Chief Justice Fuller, after making
u few routine announcements. began at
12:05 to read the courts decree in the case
of Charles Pollock versus the Farmers
Loan and Trust company, and others
This was the first in order of the cases
against the trust companies and the con-
clusions reached in it apply also to the
case of Hyde versus The Continental
Trust company, as the questions at issue
are thc same in both cases
Objections of the Appellants
The delivery of the opinion consumed
IN hours time, and all present gave the
closes. attention. Chief Justice Fuller
began with brief reference to the qucs-
tion of jurisdiction in the case. This
point had, he said, been frequently re-
ferrcd to, but ne dismissed it by saying
that rs the question had not been raised
III the court below, and had been waived
in the argument Of the case in the SUI
premc court, there appeared no objection
to considering the case purely on its mer-
its. Proceeding to this end he gave his
attention to the objections to the law as
made by the appellant. quoting the prin-
cipal ones rs follows:
That the imna=ps a direct IL,
respect of the real estate, rents, issues
and profits, rs well as of the income and
profits of personal property. and not be-
ing apportiOncd is in violation of section
. Of article of the constitution.
>. That the law, if not imposing direct
tax is nevertheless unconstitutional in
that its provisions are not uniform
throughout the United States, and do not
operate with the same force and effect
upon the subject Of the tax, wherever
found o. in that it provides exemptions
in favor of individuals and CO partner
ships while denying all exemptions to
corporations having similar incomes de-
rived from like property and values, and
provides for other exemptions and in
cqualitics in violation of section s of article
of the constitution.
3 That the act provides no exemption of
the tax upon in comes derived from
the stocks and bonds of states of
the United states and counties
and municipalities therein, which
stocks and bonds are not proper
subjects for the taxing power of fcongress.
The income from these securities IN the
United States amounts to over So. TOO, =
uOo per annum on which the total annual
income tax would be sl,51N,OD.
The body Of the opinion was devoted
to the consideration of the question from
n constitutional point OF view, and in
volyed a very elaborate definition Of the
meaning cf the phrase 'Girect taxes and
also a construction IL the constitutional
requirement as to apportiOnmCnt- This
made necessary = review Of many former
opinions of the court, n number of which,
including the Hylton and Springer cases,
Were quoted from a; length and COM
mented upon. He said that under the
constitution federal taxes were divided
into direct taxes and duties, impo>jS and
exciseS. and laid down the rule that di.
rect taxes should under that instrument
b. governed by the rule OF appor;Ionment
anon. the several states according 10 pop
ulatiOn-
status of the Law at Present.
On the question of direct taxation and
rs TO the tax on state, county and mum
cipal bonds the court made n decision
On the other questions involved IL Wa:
evenly divided and the ruling Of tn,
court below, which sustained the law
obtains. The court decides that Its inya
lidity on the points decided does moi
affect any part of the law but thos'
pOints-ln other words. the law is oper
ative except rs to those points
SUMMARY OF raE DECISION.