The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-05-21
INCOME TAX DECISION.
The Supreme Court Declares the
Law Unconstitutional
BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO FOUR.

W hoiiNdlONg may Els-~ lIlt lliNbin0 NtAA Il
law, which has received so large a share of
the public attention since the beginning |
of the first regular session of the Fifty |
third congress, is a thing Of the past. AT |
ter being twice heard in the United Stotes |
supreme court it was finally decided by |
that court to be invalid and unconstitu
tional. There were four dissenting opin
ions delivered in these cases, one each by
Justices Harlan White, Brown and Jack
son, showing that the court had stood five
to four against the law.
Inasmuch as one of these dissenting
opinions was handed down by Justice
Jackson, and as he was absent at the first
hearing, when the court divided evenly on
the question of sustaining the law on all
points except those as to the tax on in
comes from rents and bonds, 1t follows
that one of the members of the court who
at first pronounced for the law, except on
those two points, changed his attitude
after the ondargument. There is very
little question that Justice Shiras is the
member who revised his views Of the law.
| He, however, made no announcement
either yesterday of when the first opinion
was delivered as TO his position.
While the opinion of the chief justice
was largely a review of the general aspects
| of the questions involved, he based the
| opinion of the court on the argument that
| the provisions of the law regarding the
tax upon rents and bonds were so essen
| tial a factor of it as to render all other
| parts of it dependent upon them, and that
in accordance with the we'll known rule
of law bearing on this question, the law
as a whole must be declared invalid.
The opinion of the chief justice, while
L A. FL
sideration of his auditors was not the sub
iect of such general remark as were the
opinions of Justices Harlan and White
which were conched in language so vigor-
Gus, and even so emphatic in their ar
raignment of the majority, as to cause
very general comment. Both justices in
dicated their belief that the ruling opin-
ion was revolutionary, and intimated that
serious consequences might ensue. JUS
tice Harlan suggested the necessity for
amending the constitution in view of the
opinion.
The opinion of the court and the posi-
ton of each of its members has been so ac-
curately forecasted that no surprise was
expressed in any quarter at the announce
ments made either by the chief justice or
the dissenting justices. The unexpected
event of the day was in the appearance of
| Justice Jackson. He had announced after
casting his vote last Saturday week that
he would return on the following Monday
to his home in Tennessee, but it appears
that instead he went TO Philadelphia tC
consult a specialist on internal diseases
He left the bench Immediately after de
livering his opinion yesterday, and it is
understood will now proceed south. He
delivered his opinion from notes.
. The differing opinions, if given in full
would occupy space of four columns
From these voluminous opinions we quote
the following:
Chief Justice Fuller; "The constitution
divided federal taxation into two great
: classes, the class of duties, imposts ant
R excises, and prescribed two rules which
g qualified the grant of power to each class
The power to lay direct taxes apportionet
among the several states in proportion tC
their representation in the popular brancl
of congress, a representation based on pop
ulation as ascertained by the census, wal
plenary and absolute; but to lay direc
tax was forbidden. The power to lay du
ties, imposts and excises was subject tc
the qualification that the imposition mus
be uniform throughout tine United
States"
. j
well excite tho gravest apprehensions l
i strikes at the very foundation of nationa
authority in that it denies to the genera
| government power which is, or may, a
some time, in great emergency, such a
that of war, become vital to the existenc
and preservation of the Union. The praC
) tical, if not the direct effect of the decision
is to give to certain kinds of property
position of favoritism and advantage tina
is inconsistent with the fundamental prik
ciples of our social organization and to 1f
/ vest them with power and influence tfh
may be perilous to that portion otSh
| American people upon whom restf th
large part of the burdens of the glsTerr
ment, and who ought not to be sHbiecte
to the dominion of aggregated wga1th an
, more than the property OF thRacountr
should be at the mercy of the lassless
Justice Jackson; "The deci4ion of th
court ignores or violates thesNell estal
; lished rule of constructio9SFhat an aC
passed by a coordinate braIfeh of the GOV
d ernment has every prescription in ii
favor; it takes from con@t95s its rightfu
power of fixing the rate&d taxation, an
substitutes a rule incapable of applicatio
without producing thstnost wanton In
equality and injusticesS Considered in "a
q It's bearings this deelslDn is the most dis
astrous blow ever stHhek at the constitl
/, tional power of coNgfess."
!, Justice Brown sff'It is never ligh
II thing to set aside3he deliberate will of tn
b Legislature, andfi my opinion it shoul
Of never be done Except upon the cleare'
S proof of its confiict with the fundament;
M law. Respect for the constitution wi
~ not be inspired by narrow and technics
e construction which shall limit the nece
i. sary powers OF congress. Did the reyersi
is of these cases involve merely the strikln
ls down OF che inequirable features of ca
u law, OF even the whole law for its want
N uniformity, the consequences would |
ia less serious, but as il implies a declar.
tion that every Income TAX must be lil
tccorIing 10 the rtle Of Apportlonmen
the decision involves nothing less tina
surrender Of the taxing power of the mol
eyed class
Justice White: "The injustice of II
conclusion points to the error OF adoptln
I Il !. rtun