The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-05-22
Income Tax Killed.
Personal Property no More
Subject than Real Estate.

l. CAoOA0A oHOACy AO MOA -
Subject than Real Estate.
WASHINGTON, May 21.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day decided
the income tax to be unconstitutional,
the court dividing as follows: Against
the law-Chief Justice Fuller, Justices
Field, Gray, Brewer and Shiras; for
the law-Justices Harlan, Brown,
Jackson and White. Chief Justice
Fuller read the opinion of the court.
The interest attaching to all pro-
ceedings connected with the income tax
case was again manifested this morn
ing, when the Supreme Court room was
crowded under the belief that the final
judgment of the court in the income
tax Gases would be announced. This
interest was heightened by 3 know.
ledge of che fact, circulated just few
moments before the court convened,
that Associate Justice Jackson had re-
tnrned to Washington and would sit
ON the bench while the opinion was be-
ing delivered. This vas altogether a
surprise; aud his coming had been so
skillfulIy concealed that bis appear.
suce was necessary to convince some
people of its truth. He did not 60
home, as stated, but spent the week
in Philsdelphis in consultation With q
physician.
In delivering the opinion in the in
come tax cases. Chief Justice Faller
said
"Whenever this court is required t.
pass upon the validity of .au act Of
Congress. as tested by the fundamental
Law enacted by the people, the duty
imposed demands in its discharge the
utmost deliberatSon and care, and in.
vokes the deepest sense Of responsible.
ity. And this is especially so when the
question involves the exercise Of >
great governmental power. and brings
into considsratio as vitality affected
by che decision, that complex system Of
government so sagsciously framed to
secure and perpesuase ''an indessruct-
ible Union, composed Of iudestructible
States"
I'VE have, therefore, with an anxious
desire 20 omit nothing which might in
any degree tend TO elucidate the ques-
tions submitted, and aided by further
able arguments embodying the fruits Of
elaborate research, carefully re-exsm.
iued these cases with the result, that,
while our former conclusions remain
unchanged, their scope must be en-
larged By the acceptance Of their logi-
cal consequences.
Gas heretofore stated, the Conetitu.
tion divided Federal taxation into two
great classes. the class of direct taxes
and the class of duties, imposts and ex.
cises, and prescribed two rules which
qualified the grant Of power to each
class. The power to lay direct taxes
apportioued among the several States
in proportion to their representation in
the popular branch Of Congress, rep
resentation based on population as as
certained by the ceusus, was plenary
and absolute; but to lay direct taxes
without apportionment was forbidden.
The power to lay duties, imposts and
excises was subject to the qualification
that the imposition must be uniform
throughout the United States.
"Our previous decision was confined
to the consideration Of the validity of
the tax on the income from real estate
and on che income from municipal
bonds. The question, thus limited, w4s
whethether such taxation was direct or
not, 10 the meaning of the Constitution
and the court went no further, as to
the tax on the income from real estate,
than to hold that it fell within the
same class as the source whence the
income was derived-that is, that a
tax upon the realty and tax upon
the receipts therefrom were alike d.
rect, while as to the income from mp-
nicipal bonds, that could not be taxed,
becaseu of want of power to tax the
source, and DO reference vas made to
the nature Of the tax as being direct or
indirect.
eve are now permitted to broaden
the field Of inquiry aud to determine to
which Of the two great classes a tax
upon PERSONS entire income, whether
derived from rents or products, or
otherwise, of real estate or from bonds,
stocks or other forms of personal prop
erty belongs; and We are unable to
conclude that the enforced subtraction
from the yield Of all the owners real
or personal property. in che manner
described, is so different from tax
nnon the nronertv itseif shak II ia not