The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-09

He then took up the question cf the tax
on rents ami In 50 doing discussed az
considerable length the QUESTION Of direct
taxes aa considered at the tirne cf tlae
framing os the constitution. The trainers
81 the constitution were ne said weil
vsrse3 in the government OF coaenSes and
European countries and were we'll verSevi
in the literature of the period. including
works on political economy, and well
calculated 10 pass inresaSeatiy on mat
Ters CT ;Ais kind. He quoted various sas-
preme court decisions, and sought 10
show that while ths income tax question
had been before the courts the question
had only been considered as applying 20
the point a. issue in that particular case.
Coming down 70 the present tariff act. he
said the law wSs passed in time os
profound peace. and st Was 70 oe taken
sas evidence that congress had sought in
this matter TO fern precedent and es-
iah3ssh departure from established lines.
and Il therefore became important 10 IN
quire into the circumstances with some
attention 10 detail. and for the purpose
o< comparison he went back to The en-
Rctmeat CT the income tax during the
civil war. He quoted from the decision
IN the Springer ease, giving the history
or the case and devoting much attention
20 Il. as he said the defense had apssar-
emily relied upon this more generally than
upon any precsstent. II was. he said
conceded in all Ghe cases, froan Hyltan 10
Springer. that taxes on land are direct
taxes: in some of them It IS deter
mined that taxes on rents derived from
land are direct taxes. while In some Of
them Il Is determined that taxes on rents
derived from Eand are indirect taxes. W a.
there. he asked. any distinction between
d tax on land and on The income derived
from the landg What, in other wogsis.
was rent but the profit On land? The
name of the tax is unimportant, and the
court has been unable 10 see any dis
tinction.
The court nex4 decided that the tax
Was uncons.a tna4oaal as FAR ~ x relates
10 incomes from ne stake, county or snu-
nlgispai bonds. II was next rulei that The
fact EhzLt the law was pronounced uzlcor-
SaarIs. .iysxll an those TWO pSxSscuars dad
Hoe invsltdate the law as a whole. II
was announced rhat in this latter cosinlu-
sion she cosIf' equally dlv.ossi. and
therefore realdeed no opinaosi The lower
coGrt ray7,szg ruled IN favor OF the law.
by a dfyt5ied court 5spe haw w,osald stand
except ses % rent aEld state, county aspi
municipal bonds. and o.n these two points
Il was diTectnn that the judgment be
gssw reversed.
He devoted especial attention 70 tlle ex-
ss-s,atons os savings hanks. uiu1uaa in-
sInsnce cognpSETaes and building ard loan
assocAati1ns. He quoted census tsures
to show me extent OF the operations OF
fe1esse conspalfsses sGRl sslAi that Ii these
facts were not convincing. congrass could
not he couv tncxsi, though one rise TTuxn
the dead" He tosSk issue with those
who csstessd.i rifat There should be no
Nightmare Limitation OF the power of c,ogl-
gTesSs 20 Impose taxes. die 5asd stress
upon the fact t.las the law does not ex-
anTpt Judges of the Ura9te5 States courts
from psy'nFmt OF rehc tax. 1t was not
right ne said. ktla.i the supreme courts
shoalld remain silent and make no pro-
test when many United States officers
driving small salaries woaIld he affected
because OF the CIV. lie called aaasnfk0n
to "A letter once written by Chef Justice
CEasa to tine trassa-y officials Ts'sbertarg
against deiuctlon of the aDcoEne tax from
the salaries OF United States jusiges.
Chief Justice Fuller was followed by
Justice Field, who read the first dissent
ing opinion. speaking in a low tone that
contrasted noticeahiy with the loud de-
livery of the chief Justice. Justice Fields
opinion was largely devoted TO a review
OF the provisions regarding rents. and
was a vigorous denunciation of the prin-
ciple sought 10 be established by the in
come tax law, his conclusions being In
conformity to those announced by the
chief justice. He also attacked the law
on account OF the lack of uniformity and
dwelt upon it's exemptions and discrim-
ination, which was. he said, class iegis-
lation.
Justice Field ooslcwiss4 by saying ne
was OF the opinhon that ssle esse.re law
should be declared unoons,5tst tIonal.
Justice White also ANNOUNCED a dissent.
He thought the court In It's decision to-
day had overthrown a long line of deci-
sions and the uniform practice since the
foundation of the government. The bill,
he said. was n prayer for Injunction OF a
trust company from making its returns.
The practice had been that an action for
injunction before the payment Of q tax
would not lie. II was an effort 10 ac-
compish by indirecton what The statutes
of the United States forbids man TO do
2sy direct process While the main opinion
asserted that there were numerous rrece-
dents, he called attention TO the fact that
only two were cited He thought. there
fore that relief granted was In violation
Of the practice of the court. lie regret
ted that this line of decisions was TO be
oxerthr0wn for annuling an act OF con-
e-ress which he considered in the line OF
ahe former opinions OF the court. He
affirmed that congress has as unlimited
power OF taxation as Is exercised by any
government I'm the world. lie said the
great question at issue was whether the
income tax was a direct tax, and that
question. he said, he Thought had been
decided hundred years ago In the Hyl-
ton case, and In that case the Judgment
practically decided that direct taxes were
confined to taxes on hand as such. lie
said he considered thaH IL there had pre-
viously been any doubts they had been
set aside in the Springer case, and the
question OF validity OF an income tax
established. He could not see that there
was a hairs breadth OF difference be-
tween these cases and those now under
consideration. He agreed with his col
leagues that the TAX was unconstitutional
as 10 stsrte. county and municipal bonds.
The opinions we're concluded at 245
p m by brief one from Justice Harlan.
fn which he held that tax upon In
comes from lands ~ not direct tax. and
that income derived from municipal bonds
Is not the subject OF specific taxation Ia
any form by the United States.
The decision applies TO three cases. the
FIRST Of which was brought into the
courts of the District OF Columbia by
John q. Moore to entoin the commmis-
oner Of internal revenue from the col
lection OF the income tax while the other
TWO we're those OF Charles Pollock rs. the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company. and
Louis II. Hyde VS.. the Continental Trust
Company. both appealed from the decis-
ion Of the ctrcuitcourt for the southern dis
trict OF New York When the circuit
court sustained the law Pollock and Hyde
appealed to the Supreme court OF the
United States. The cases were then ad-
vauced on the docket and arguef March
:, 10 iz and Is. Attorney General Olney.
James c. Carter. OF New York. and As
a{stant Attorney General Whitney ap-
peared for the government and choate
seward. Guthrie and ex senator Edmunds
for the trust companies and Moore. The
argument attracted more attention than
has been given to any case ia the ss-