St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-09
Law DEFECTIVE.
Continued From First Page.

Continued From First Page.
nfists, but upon the sense in which
these words are used in the constitu-
tlon, as heretofore Interpreted
Fifth-Shortly after the constitution
was framed Q79D congress put con-
struction upon these words by impos-
ng a tax on carriages. The act was
oassed by a large majority and was
approved by Washington.
SiXth-The above act was considered
by this court in
THE HYLTON CASE"
in third Dallas, and it's constitution
atty was maintained, the reasoning of
all the judges clearly showing the
word direct" in the constitution had a
technical nearing.
ffeventh-From the date of that de-,
clsion to the present time the authori-
tative writers on the constitution have
agreed that its effect was to give a
opeculiar" significance to the word
direct" as used in the constitution
and it is by reason of this peculiar
significance that it has been settled
that an income tax may be levied by
the federal government.
Eighth-The significance attached to
: the word direct in the constitution
by this court, nearly hundred years
ago., was acquiesced in and adopted
by the other departments of the gov
ornment.
,.Ninth-F'rom 1861 to 1868 many acts
We're passed by congress levying an
income tax. These acts imposed a tax
upon incomes from every source They
were passed by overwhelming major
tiles, and their enactment demonstrates
the consensus of opinion regarding the
effect Of the Interpretation of the con-
, stitution made by this court many
years before
Tenth-Every case in the lower courts
! involving the validity of these laws
which can be found, was decided in
their favor.
JUSTICE WHITE THEN REVIEWS
each of the previous decisions of the
supreme court in similar tax cases,
and adds: These repeated decisions
II seems to me, remove the case from
the domain of controversy. The de-
cree here rendered does not overrule
these cases directly, but, in my opinion,
II GOES so by 1ndirection.
The decisions cited here determined
not only that q. general income tax is
constitutional without apportionment
as being an indirect tax, but that the
inclusion therein of the rentals of real
estate does not make it direct
The opinion of the court today In
holding that the inclusion of the rent
ais of land in income tax renders the
tax direct quo ad hoe, not only re-
verses the decision 1 have cited. but
involves, 1t seems to me, a contradic-
ton In terms. If the income tax, as
such, levied on an individual accord
ing to his income is not a direct tax,
how can 1t be said that the inclusion
therein of rentals derived from real
estate makes 1t direct tax protanto?
This inclusion assuredly reaches his
real estate only in an indirect way.
The effect of the decision appears to
be to hold that that which is indirect
is direct
The contention that the legality of
the inclusion of revenue from real
estate is an income tax was not in
F0aWed in the decisions heretofore rem
dered upon the matter in hand seems
to me untenable.
rs THE TEST OF THE. THING
adJudged seems to me conclusive here.
Gould the insurance company in the
case just mentioned have been heard,
after the rendition of the decree. to
assert that it was not bound to in
clude it's revenues from real estate in
IT'S returns made under the law then
IN force? If it had undertaken to do so
upon the ground that so far as those
revenues were concerned the income
tax was direct. and must therefore
be- apportioned among the states ac-
cogding to population, would not this
plea have been conclusive against it
would not this court have said, in eff
rect: The issue previously presented
was the liability Of your entire income
TO taxation. You have already elabor-
ated fully your objection to the in
cluslon of rentals of real estate in the
estimation of your incomes. Our de-
cree was rendered in response to re-
quest from the court below for our
opinion upon the validity of the in
come tax as whole, and rendered it
to lie
VALID IN ITS ENTIRETY.
But the decision that to include the
rent of realty in an income tax in
wolves the levying of a tax on the
realty, such as must be apportioned
under the constitution is, in my opin-
ion; untenable. The question is not,
according to my view, whether such
inclusion affects real estate, but
whether the tax thus levied is d.
rect tax thereon, within the meaning
of the constitution.
According to the very words of the
statute, this tax is indirect. 1t is in no
sense a tax on land as such. 1t places
no burden on real estate; If it is not
rented, or If the rent is not collected,
or if the owner occupies the land him
self. 1t puts no direct burden on land
under any circumstances, for 1t allows
the deduction from the income derived
from land and all other sources of
$4,000, as well as all expenses incurred
in the transaction of business. The
fallacy of the opinion, as I see it, lies
in the assumption that the constitu-