Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-20

sault upon the rights Of the people. He
predicted that the decision would provoke
a contest such as the country should have
been spared.
Thinks 1t IL to Be Dep1ored.
In conclusion. Justice Harlan said, speak,
ing Of the decision Of the court:
Such a result Is one to be deeply de-
plored. 1t cannot be regarded otherwise
than disaster to the country. The practi-
CAL If not the direct effect of the decision
today is to give to certain kinds Of prop
erty position of favoritism and advantage
that is inconsistent with the fundamental
principles of our social organization, and TO
invest them with power and influence that
may be perilous to that portion OF the
American people upon whom rests the
larger part of the burdens Of the govern
mept, and who ought not to be subjected to
the dominion of aggregated wealth any
more than the property of the country
should be at the mercy of the lawless.
Justice Jackson's Dissent.
Justice Jackson at As began the de-
livery of dissenting opinion. 1t was I'M
derstood that he would be followed by
Justice Brown The dissenting justices
therefore are Harlan, Jackson, Brown and
White.
Justice Jackson said that he regretted
tndt ms strength WOuiu NOT perm XIII "
prepare full opinion. He concurred fully
in the opinion by Justice White at the
former hearing of the case and would con-
tent himself with adding briefly q few
points to that opinion.
He could not understand. he said, what
difference there was between that class OF
incomes decided by the court to be WITHIN
the rule Of apportionment, and to the class
decided not to be within the rule of uni
formity. Nor could he understand how the
valid portions could be invalidated because
of the unconstitutionality of other portions.
If the principle upon which this decision
was made was sound, it could De extended
so as to render the entire act or 1SSi IN
wsre wholly seoarable and to hold that
an invalid portion broke down the Valhi
portion vas. he thought, without authority
and without law.
ter settled than that the court should not
declare unconstitutional all enactment OF
the legislative branch of the government
unless it's repugnance to the constitution
was clear beyond a reasonable doEbt he
objected to this decision of the court De
cause ne thought the court had adopted
wrong method in arriving "a It's concur
sions as to what direct tax was. 10,
The founders of the Constitution had
bases of taxation in view when the rule o.
apportionment for direct taxes was iaio
down and they certainly did not nave in
view things which did not have general
distr.bution A direct tax on cotton, rice
or tobacco for instance, laid by the rule OF
apportionment would have been absurd.
The trainers of the Constitution evidently
had land in view.
Population and Land.
There was a certain relation between
population and land. But there was abso-
lutely no relation between population and
personally and the income therefrom or
rents or bonds and their incomes. A tax
that could not be equitably apportioned by
the rule of numbers could not be direct
the Constitution.
This was after all the best and most
practical test of direct tax. He Illus
trated the absolute and necessary injus-
tice which must follow en- apportionment
of an income tax by the rule of numbers
by comparing the new state of Washing
ton with the old state of Rhode Island.
In the former 5000 persons, perhaps, would
be called upon to pay the same amount of
or 6U,OU0 persons.
The imposition of such taxes by the rule
of apport;onment levied taxes arbitrary
with no principle of justice or fairness be-
hind them. This decision, in his opinion,
practically destroyed the power of the gov
eminent to reach incomes. 1t takes from
Congress its rightful power to fix the rate
Of taxation, and substitutes therefore a
rule incapable of application without i'm
posing the most monstrous inequality on
the citizens of common country.
The decision reversed the common rule
Of taxation by exempting those who were
best able TO pay and forcing the burden
upon the shoulders of those least able to
pay. In concluding. Justice Jackson said
in his opinion the decision was the most
disastrous blow ever struck at the con-
stitut!onal power of Congress. 1t struck
down an important, vital and essential
power of the government. 1t left the gov.
power to reach by taxation in any :orm
the vast incomes derived from the real and
personal property of the country.
THE decision" he concluded. lis dis
aster. and must be regarded as public
calamity"
Justice Brown Also.
Justice Jackson concluded at 2:35 pm,
and was followed by Mr.. Justice Brown.
He held to the doctrine of stare decisis.
Even century of error, he said. may be
pregnant with less evil to the state than q
newly discovered truth.
Justice White Dissents.
Justice White followed Justice Brown, re-
nouncing the opinion expressed by him
when the case was first decided.
How the Decision Was Reached.
It is understood that the final decision Of
the Supreme Court was practically reached
at a conference held last Saturday. AT this
meeting it was found that Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Field, Brewer and Gray
were still opposed to the constitutionality
of the law as whole. while the majority
of the court only favored the exemption of
incomes from rents and state and munich
pal bonds.
1t Is said that at this time Justice Shiras,
who had hitherto believed the income tax
law, other than in It's paragraphs about
rents and bonds, was entirely constitution
al. began to waver. Chief Justice Fuller
had already begun 10 write an opinion
represcut:ng the views of Justices Field,
Gray, Brewer and himself, when he was
informed, so it is said, by Justice Shiras
that he had also come around to an opul-
ion that the law was Unconstitutional and
the chief justice was thus apprised that
the opinion he had commenced would be
a binding decision when rendered.
Brief History of the Cases.
A Justice of the court when asked the
other day which he considered the most
important case that had been before the
court since he had been on the bench, re-