The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-04-09


States Supreme court rendered Its de-.
cision oday in the income tax cases,
deciding by divided court the law to
be valid, except as regards the incomes
derived from rents and from municipal
bonds, on which points the decision was
that the tax was Unconstitutional.
The opinion was general among law
yers and Legislators that the case
would be reached to day. and there was
On unusual attendance OF the public in
the court room.
Among those in attendance wore
many lawyers from other cities, as we'll
as large representation from Wash
ington. There were several Senators
In the list, including Hill, OF New York;
Lodge, OF Massachusetts, and Lindsay,
OF kentucky. Attorney General Olney
was aleo present.
Only one member of the bench WAS
absent, Justice Jackson, who has not
been able to be in attendance upon the
court since last fall, and who has not
participated In the consideration of the
case in any way. 1t Is to his absence
that the even division Of the court on
the majority of the propositions in
'OiFS~ IL uhO SooO 40 QQ0. IL u0 lAu
been present such case would have
been impossible and this would have
included discussion of all points In
golved, instead of only the two in
regard to incomes derived from rents
and municipal and State bonds.
The judges filed in promptly at high
noon, and there was very little pre-
liminary work before the chief justice
began tho delivery OF an opinion which
Is regarded by many as the mos. i'm
portant and far-reaching IN it's effects
that has boon rendered in this court
since the days of the rebellion. Chief
Justice Fuller, after making q few
routine announcements, began at 1905
to read the courts decree in the case of
Charles Pollock vs. the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company and others. This
was the first in ORDER OF the cases against
the trust co npanies, and the conclusions
reached in 1t apply also to the case of
Hyde vs.. the Continental Trust Conn.,
pany, as the questions at issue are the
same in both cases.
The delivery of the opinion consumed
an hours time, and all present gave the
closest attention. Mr.. Fuller began
with brief reference to the uues sion
of Jurisdiction in the case. This point
had, ne said, been frequently referred
to. but he dismissed it by saying that
as the question had not been raised in
the court below, and had been waived
in the argument of the case in the Su-
preme Court, there appears no objec ton
to considering the case purely on it's
merits.
Proceeding to this end, he gave his
attention to the objections to the law as
made by the appellant, quoting the
principal Onos as follows:
l.. That the act imposes direct tax
in respect OF the real estate, rents,
issues and profits as we'll as of the in
comes and profits of personal property,
and not being apportioned is in viola
ton of section two of article I of the
constitution.
2. That the law, If not imposing a
direct tax Is nevertheless unconstiuu-
tional in that its provisions are no.
uniform throughout the Uni,ed States,
and do not operate with the same force
and effect upon the subject of the tax
wherever found, and that it provides
exemptions in favor Of individuals and
copartnerships, while denying all exa
emptions to corporations having SINH.
lar iHcomes derived from like property,
and provides for other exemptions and
inequalities in violation of sec ton 8 OF
article Of the constitution.
3. That the act provides no exemption
OF the tax upon incomes derived from
the stocks and bonds of the States of
the United States and counties and mu.
inequalities therein, which stocks and
bonds are not proper subjects for the
taxing power of Congress. The income
from these securities in the United
States amounts to over S65, 900, 600 per
annum, on which the total annual in.
come tax would be S1,3OO,O0O.
The body OF the opinion was devoted to
the consideration of the question from
constitutional point Of view, and in
volved very elaborate def milton of the
meaning OF the phrase direct taxes"
and also o construction of the constitu..
tional requirements as to appointment.
He said that under the constitution fed
eral taxes were divided into direct
taxes and dutieH, imposts and
excuses and laid down the rule
that direct taxes should under that
instrument be governed by the rule of
apporttonmentam among the several States
according to population.
Referring to the question of direct
taxation. he said that 1t was not to ba
presumed that the trainers of the con.
stitution were not men capable of ap.
preciating what they were doing, when
they provided for the differation of i'm.
posts, excuses and duties from other
forms OF taxation. They knew perfectly
we'll, for instance, that q tax upon lands
was generally regarded as direct tax,
and 1t was provided that direct taxes
should BIZ apportioned among the
States because direct taxation ia found
in operation In all the States and is
therefore. as thus apportioned, practic
able and just.
The trainers OF the fundamental law
had before them more prominently than
any other thought the idea that taxa