The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-04-13
THE WEEKS NEWS.
TUESDAY. APRIL 0.

several days, the Supreme Court on
Monday, April 8, decided that the In
come Tax law is unconstitutional so far
as it affects incomes derived from rents
and real estate or from State, county
and municipal bonds. The court was
divided as to the remainder of the law,
and as the decision of the court below
was in favor of it's constitutionality, that
decision must stand.
Chief Justice Fuller read the decision
before one of the largest audiences that
ever crowded into the court room. The
closest attention was accorded him, but
it was soon evident that the press fore
cast had been an accurate one. and hence
there was less interest taken in the de-
cision than would have been the case
had it not already been discounted in
the newspapers.
Chief Justice Fuller began by stating
the exceptions to the law as made by
counsel for the appellant 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 Income and
profits of personal property and not be-
ing apportioned, is in violation of Sec
ton of Article of the G, Institution.
2. That the law, if not imposing
direct tax, is nevertheless unconstitu-
tional in that it's provisions are not uni
form throughout the United States, and
do not operate with the same force and
effect upon the subject of the tax, where
ever found, or in that it provides exemp-
tions in favor of individuals and co-part-
nerships while denying all exemptions
to corporations having similar income
derived from like property and values,
and provides for other exemptions and
inequalities in violation of section of
article of the Constitution.
8. That the act provides no exemption
of the tax upon incomes derived from
the stocks and bonds of States OF the
United States and counties and munich
palities 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 100000 per annum,
on which the total annual income tax
would be s1.3oOOOO.
Relies on the Constitution.
He then took up the constitutional
points involved, dwelling upon the fact
that the Constitution required the ap
portionment of direct taxes and unifor-
nifty in excuses and imports. He also
dwelt upon the question of representa-
ton and taxation. which was, he said
foremost one when the Constitution was
adopted.
He then took up the question OF
the tax on rents and in so doing dis
cussed at considerable length the ques-
ton of direct taxes as considered at
the time of the framing of the Con-
stitution. The trainers of the Constitu-
ton ere, he said, we'll versed in the
government of the colonies and Euro
pean countries, and also in the literature
of the period, including works on politi-
cal economy, and we'll calculated to pass
intelligently on this kind. He quoted
various Supreme Court decisions and
sought to show that while the income
tax question had been before the court.
the question had only been considered
as applying to the point at issue in the
particular cases.
Coming down to the present tariff act,
he said that the law was passed in time
of profound peace. and it was to be taken
as evidence that Congress had sought in
this matter to form precedent and es-
tablish a departure from established
lines and it therefore became important
to inquire into the circumstances with
some attention to detail, and for the pur-
pose of comparison he went back to the
enactment of an income tax during the
civil war.
He quoted from the decision in the
Springer case. giving a history OF the
case and devoting much attention to it,
as he said it was upon this case that the
defense had apparently relied upon more
generally than upon any precedent.
1t is. he said, conceded in all the cases
from Hylton to Springer that taxes on
land are direct taxes. while in some of
them it is determined that taxes on rents
derived from lands are indirect taxes.
Was there, he asked. any distinction be-
tween tax on the land and the income
derived from the land?
Tax on Rents Invalid.
What, in other words. was the land
but the profit on it? The name of the
tax is unimportant. and the court had
been unable to see any distinction. He
closed by saying the court had reached
the conclusion that the tax on rents was
invalid.
The Chief Justice then took up the
question of the taxation of municipal
and State bonds. The decision was also
adverse to this part OF the law as re-
pugnant to the Constitution. On the
other points the court was divided and
therefore no opinion could be given.
Justice Field then read dissenting
opinion, in concluding which he said:
II am of the opinion that the whole