The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1895-05-24
THE INCOME TAX LAW is UN.
CONSTITUTIONAL.
AT A FULL MEETING OF THE SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES A MAJORITY OF
ONE is GIVEN AGAINST THE
MEASURE.

tlOndl.
Upon the question of general un-
constitutionallty Of the law the coult
is understood to be as follows
Against the Law.-Chief Justice
Fuller, Justices Field, Gray, Brown
and Shiras.
For the Law-Justices Harlan,
Brown, Jackson and White.
The chief justice announced the
following conclusions
First. We adhere to the opinion
already announced that taxes on real
estate being undisputably direct taxes,
taxes on the rents or income of real
estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that
taxes on personal property or on the
income of personal property are like
wise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by section
twenty-seven to thirty seven, inclusive,
OF the act Of 1894, SO far as it falls on
the income of real estate and OF
personal property, being a direct tax
within the meaning Of the consttu
,ion, and therefore unconstitutional
and void because not apportioned &C
cording to representation, all those
sections constituting one entire scheme
Of taxation are necessarily invalid.
The DEGREES hereinbefore entered
in this court will be vacated the
DEGREES below will be reversed, and
the cases remanded with instructions
to grant the relief prayed.
Opinions were also read by Justices
Jackson, White, Harlan and Brown.
Justice Jackson, OF Tennessee, who
was present at the recent rehearing,
united with the other eight justices IN
to days decision. He appears to
have voted in favor of the constitu
tionality Of the law as a whole, but a
majority for unconstitutionality was
obtained by the detection of Justice
Shiras, who assumed to day position
directly the reverse Of that taken by
him in April.
| OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
In rendering his opinion the chic
Justice said: The constitution divid
ed federal taxation into two greaI
classes, the class of direct taxes, anC
the class Of duties, imposts and ex
cises, and prescribed two rules which
qualified the grant OF power to eacl
class. The power to lay direct take
apportioned among the several state
in proportion to their representation
IN the popular branch of congress, ;
representation based on population a
ascertained by the census, was plenar,
and absolute but to lay direct ia
was forbidden. The power to la,
duties, imposts and excises was subjec
to the qualification that the imposi
ton must be uniform throughout tht
| United States.
He referred to the fact that th
matter under consideration was broad
er in scope than tine first question
decided some weeks ago. embracin
the constitutionality Of the entire law
He called attention to the history c
the struggle in the constitutional cor
vention as to the power to be gran
ed the government in the matter {
laying taxes the reviews of early cor
stitutional writers and expounders
and the early decisions of the court
and continued =
The constitution prohibits any d
rect tax, unless in proportion to nun
bers as ascertained by the census
and in the light of the circumstance
| to which we have referred, is it nc
an evasion of that prohibition to hol
that general unapportioned tax
imposed upon all property owners {
body for or in respect of their pre-
+ perty is not direct, in the meaning {
the constitution, because confined
| the income therefrom ?
, Whatever the speculative views
{ political economists or revenue r
formers may be, can il be proper
! held that the constitution, taken
| its plain and obvious sense, and vii
: due regard to the circumstances a
tending the formation of the COVE
ment, authorizes a general unappo
4 toned tax on the products OF Il
t farm and the rents of real estate, a
p though imposed merely because
: ownership and with no possible mea
, of escape from payment, as belongir
' to totally different class from tn
which included the property fro
S whence tine income proceeds?
: There can be but one answer, u
less the constitutional restriction Is
S be treated as utterly illusory and {
, tile, and the object Of its fram {
, defeated.
= We find it impossible TO hold that
/ fundamental requisition, deemed {
| important as to be enforced by tv
E provisions, one affirmative and OIL
negative, can be refined away
: forced distinctions between that whi'
. gives value to prODerty and the Or