The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-05-01
JUSTICE FULLER'S DECISION
In the Income Tax Cases-No Direct Ia
Can be Laid by Congress.

In the Income Tax Cases-No Direct Tax
Can be Laid by Congress.
WASHINGTON, April 25.-The full text
of the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller
in the income tax cases recently an
nounced in the United States supreme
court has been made public. The chief
Justices opinion dwells upon the con-
tention of the claimants in the cases
Pollard VS.. Farmers Loan and Trust
Company and Hyde VS.. the Continental
Trust Company against the constitu-
tionaiity of the law and in disserta-
tion upon the matter of taxes within
the meaning of the constitution;refers to
the historical circumstances attending
the framing and adoption of that in
strument and as to what at the time Of
that event were recognized as direct
taxes. Congress, says the chief justice,
under the articles of federation had no
actual operative power of taxation. 1t
had no power to lay any tax upon indi-
viduals.
In the course of his elaborate pro-
duction, the chief justice says:
The requirement of the constitution is that
no direct tax shall be laid otherwise than by
apportionment-the prohibition is not against
direct taxes ON land, from which the implica-
tion Is sought to be drawn that indirect taxes
on land would be constitutional, but 1t is
against all direct taxeS-and 1t Is admitted that
tax on real estate Is o direct tax Unless,
therefore, a tax upon rents or incomes issuing
out of lands is intrinsically so different from a
tax on the land itself that it belongs to wholly
different class Of taxes such taxes must be re-
garded as falling within the same category as a
tax on real estate co nomine. The name of the
tax Is unimportant. The real question is, is
there any basis upon which to rest the conten-
tion that real estate belongs TO one of the two
great classes of taxes and the rent or income
which Is the incident OF its ownership, belongs
to the other? We are unable to perceive any
ground for the alleged distinction.
Nothing can be clearer than what the consti-
tuition intended to guard against was the exer-
else by the general government OF the power
of directly taxing persons and property within
! any state through majority made up from the
other states and, he says, we are OF the opin-
ion that the law in question so far as it evies o
| tax on the rents or income of real estate, Is In
violation OF the constitution and is invalid.
The tax on government stocks. the chief JUS
tice further cites, is thought by this court to be
! tax on the contract, a tax on the power to Dor
row money on the credit Of the United States
and consequently to be repugnant to the consti'
tuition.
Upon each Of the other questions argued al
the bar, to-wit
First-Whether the void provisions as to rents
and incomes from real estate invalidated the
whole act?
Second-Whether as to the income from per
sonal property as such, the act Is unconstitu
tional as laying direct taxes'
Third-Whether any part Of the tax, II no
considered as a direct tax, is invalid for wan
OF uniformity on either Of the grounds sug
gested-the justices who heard the argumen
are equally divided and, therefore, no opinion
is expressed The result is that the decree o
the circuit court is reversed and the cause re
manded with directions TO enter decree Il
favor Of the complainant in respect only Of tn
voluntary payment Of the tax on the rents ant
income OF the real estate Of the defendant com
pany and OF that which 1t holds In trust and In
come from the municipal bonds owned or 81
held by 1t.