The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1895-04-17

{sInc court OeclueS that Taxation OH HI
comes from State or Municipal Bonds or
from Real Estate is Unconstitutions1--
- How tho Court Stands.
WASHINGTON, April 1O.'The an
nouncement of the decision of the Su-
prene Court of the United States in
Z the income tax cases Monday was
mado in the presence of q crowded
I courtroom, the spectators lobby being
thronged to its utmost capacity. Pub
lie interest i'll the case has drawn al
attendance every decision day since
the argument took place that has tax
ed the power and ingenuity Of the
officials to care for. Among those
q General Olney, Assistant Attorney
General Whitney and Mr. w. d.
Guthrie, Of New York, who took part
in the argument; Mr.. j. M. Wilson,
Of Washington, Of counsel for r. G.
to restrain Internal Revenue Commis-
out the law; Senator David B. Hill, Of
the insertion Of the tax provision in
Treasury Boutwell,; R. B. Bowler,
Mitchell and Hunton, lGx- Attorney
General Garland, the Hon. Geo. G.
German and Il great number Of attor-
neys more or less interested in the ac-
ton Of the Court.
Mr.. Associate Justice Jackson, entered
ttn NJ, 1,nM ~ 4
few cases Of minor Importance we're
nounced that at the conclusion of the
adjourn over Good Friday, and sow
erSl orders Of the Court after which
/ tiiiio great case Of the day was read by
him. TIe said amidst an almost pain
full stiffness; 81 am charged with the
Judgment Of the Court in the case Of
Charles Pollock VS.. Tho Farmers Loan
and Trust Company ct al" The con
as follows:
1. That by The Constitution Federal
taxation is divided into two great
posts and excise.
L
es is governed by the rule Of appor-
tionment among the several States ac-
cording to numbers and the imposi-
ton of duties. imposts and cXcises by
the rule Of uniformity throughout the
3 United States.
3. That the principle that taxation
Z intended to be and was prescribed in
f1,a 41,o II
Of the rule Of the apportionment
among the several States, SO that such
apporIionmcnt should bc according tc
numbers III each State.
|. 4. That the States surrendered theil
power to lcYy yimpOsts and to rcgult.te
X commerce to the General Government
and gave it the concurrent power tc
levy direct taxes in reliance on the
protection afforded by the rules pre-
scribed, and that the compromises ol
the Constitution cannot be disturbed
r by legislative action.
from the text Of tho Constitution and
: dence furnished by the circumstances
surrounding the framing and adoption
of that instrument and the views OF
oilooC Wllo lISttIiCtt ullll UllOI}lCtt
6. That the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time Of the adoption
I OF the Constitution was that direct
taxes would not be levied by the Gen
eral Government except under the
pressure, of extraordinary exigency,
and such has been the practice down
to August 15, 1894 If the power to do
so is to be exercised as an ordinary
and usual means Of supply that fact
furnishes an additional reason for cir
cumspection in disposing of the pres
ent cases
z. That taxes on real estate belong
to the class of direct taxes, and that
the taxes on rent or income Of real
estate, which is the incident of its
ownership, belong to the same class.
g. That by no previous decision of
this Court has this question been adj
judicated to the contrary Of the con
clusions now announced That so
much Of the Act of August Is, 1894,
as attempts to impose tax upNn the
rent or income Of real estate without
apportionment is invalid
4 The Court is further of the opinion
that the Act Of August Is, 1894, is in
valid, SO far as it attempts to levy a
tax upon the income derived from
municipal bonds. As q municipal cor
pOration is the representative Of the
State and one Of tho instrllmentalitics
of the State Government, the property
and revenue Of municipal corporations
are not tue subjects Of Federal taxa
ton, nor is tho income derived from
tho State, county and municipal secu-
rites. since taxation OH tho interest
therefrom operates on the power to
borrow before it is exercised, and has
sensible influence on tho contract,
and, therefore. such tax is a tax on
tho power Of tho States and their in
strumcntalitics to borrow money, and
consequently rcpugnant to tho Con
stitution.
Upon each of the other questions ar
gued at the Bar, to wit
l6.&l. Whether the void provisions as
to rents and income from real estate
invalidates the whole Act9
3. Whether as to the income from
personal property as such the Act is
unconstitutional as laying direct
taxes2
8. Whether any part of tho tax, il
not considered as a direct tax. is in
validfor want of uniformity on eithc,
of the grounds suggcstcd9
The Juticcs who heard tho argument
are equally divided, md therefore, ne
opinion is expressed. The result j.
that the decree Of the Circuit Court il
reversed and the cause rcmandcd with
directions,to, enter a decree in favor OF
complainant in respect only Of the
voluntary payment Of tho tax on the