Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-04-08
FROM WASHINGTON.
(ccrrcspcndence of tho Alexandria aazetts.]
WASHINGTON, April S.

: pectdloTS loDoy DcinS =: .lo
u most capacity. Public interest IN .ne
case has drawn an attendance esei
decision day since the argument LOOK
Mace that has taxed the power and IN
g-nuitv of the officials to care Tor.
I mono those within the rail to-day
w .re Attorney General Olney, ASSIST,
ont Attorney General Whitney. and
Mr.. w. ID. Guthrie, of New \ ork, VINO
To X part in the argument: MIR. j. NJ.
" Ison. of Washington, of counsel Tor
q. Moore, who sought an injunction
t. restrain Internal Revenue Commis-
soner Miller from proceeding to carry
O 1T the law; Senator David b. Hill, OF
lew York, who SO persistently fought
the insertion of the tax provision in
the tariff law: ex.Secretary of the
Treasury Boutwell,; R. B. Bowler,
Comptroller of the Treasury; Senator
Mitchell, ex-Attorney General Garland,
and great number of attorneys more
or less interested in the action OF the
court.
The members of the court, except
Mr.. Associate Justice Jackson, entered
the chamber promptly at noon and
were received with the ceremonial at
tention that marks their every entrance,
every one in the court room rising to
his feet while the procession of the JUS
tees, headed by the marshal of the
court, marched in dignifed order to
their seats. A few cases of minor
Importance were disposed of, and the
chief Justice announced that at the
conclusion of the sitting on Thursday
the court would adjourn over GOOD
Friday, and several orders by the
court, after which the great case of the
day was read ny him. He said, amidst
an almost painful stiffness: II am
charged with The duty of announcing
the opinion and judgment of the court
in the case of Charles Pollock vs.. the
Farmers Loan and Trust Co., ct al. ;"
Chief Justice at o'clock finished read
ing The decision of the question whether
or not tax on rents from real estate is
a tax on real estate, and therefore
direct lax, and announced that the
court has decided that it is a tax on
real estate, therefore direct tax and
as provided for in the present law I'M
constitutional.
The opinion of the chief justice also
declares that the tax on municipal and
S ate bonds is unconstitutional. On
all other points the court is
utally divided and no opinion
hereon is given The decision
If the court below on these points is re-
versed and similar entry made in the
case of Hyde VS. the Continental Trust
Company.
The conclusions of the court were
stated to be as follows:
l. That by thei Constitution federal
taxation is divided into two great
classes Direct taxes and duties, imposts
and excuses.
2. That the imposition of direct taxes
is governed by the rule of apportion-
ment among the several States, accord
ing to numbers, and the imposition OF
duties, imposts and excuses by the>rule
of uniformity throughout the United
States.
8. That the principle that taxation
and representation go together was in
tended to be and was prescribed in the
Constitution by the establishment OF
the rule Of apportionment among the
several States, so that such apportion-
ment should be according to numbers
in each State.
4. That the States surrendered their
power to levy imposts and to regulate
commerce to the general government
and gave it the concurrent power to
levy direct taxes in reliance on the pre-.
tectiou afforded by the rules prescribed
and that the compromises Of the Con-
Stitution cannot be disturbed by legis-
lative action.
5. That these conclusions result from
the text of the Constitution, and are
supported by the historical evidence
furnished by the circumstances sur
rounding the framing and adoption Of
that instrument, and the views of those
who framed and adopted it.
S. That the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time of the adop-
ton of the Constitution was that
direct taxes would not be levied by
the general government except under
the pressure of extraordinary exigency,
and such has been the practice down to
August Is, 1894. If the power to do so
is to be exercised as an ordinary and
usual means of supply, that fact furn-
ishes an additional reason for circum-
spection in disposing of the present
case.
7. That taxes on real estate belong
to the class of direct taxes, and that
the taxes on the rent or income of real
estate, which is the incident of its own
ership, belong to the same class.
S. That by no previous decision of
this court has this question been ad-
Indicated to the contrary of the conclu-
sions now announced.
That so much of the act of August
Is, 1894, as attempts to impose a tax
upon the rent or income of real estate
without superintendent is invalid.
The court is further of opinion that
the act of August Is, 1894, is invalid so
far as it attempts to levy a tax upon
the income derived from municipal
bonds. AS municipal corporation is
the representative of the State and one
of the instrumentalities of the State
government, the property and rev.
enues of municipal corporations
are not the subjects of federal
taxation, nor is the income de-
rived from State, county and munich
pal securities, siuce taxation on the 1n-
terest therefrom operates on the pow
er to borrow before it is exercised and
has sensible influence on the contract,
and, there fore, such a tax is on the
power of the States and their instru-