The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-04-17

if an error of principle was likely
thereby to be perpetuated or commit
ted. In the light Of these observations,
the opinion considered the decisions
down to that in the Springer case, and
concluded that they were' all distin-
guishable from the oue in hand. The
Springer case was 90 exception to the
rule, ipasmuch as it did not present the
point raised in this case. Is a tax on
rents, a tax on real estate. The court,
the opinion continued, was unable to
see any distinction between a tax on
real estate and a tax on the rents aris-
ing from such real estate. What is land
but the income thereof? was asked.
The constitutional requirement was
that direct taxes should be laid caly by
apportloument among the States &C
cording to population, and this tax was
a direct tax. There was DO distinction
between an annual tax on the value of
the lazd and a tax on the land itself.
Constitutional provisions it was said,
could DOT be thus evaded; it vas the
substance, and not the form or shadow
that was to prevail in constituting them.
Upon this point there were many de-
cisiops and some of them were quoted.
'sWhat the Constitution intended to
prevent" said the Chief Justice. twas
that no tax should be laid on the resi-
dents Of auy State by the representa-
lives of other States" The exercise of
the power to levy taxes was to be re-
stricted to extraordinary occasions.
In conclusion, therefore, upon this
point, the Chief Justice announced that
the court we're of the opinion that that
part OF the law imposing taxes upon
rents obtained from real estate was in-
valid.
Next 10 order, the opinion considered
the third objection to the law-tbat it
imposed a tax upon the incomes derived
from investments in State and munich
pal bonds. and was therefore invalid.
Chief Justice Fuller reasscrted the
general principle that a tax 90 govern
ment bonds was held to be a tax 90
contracts. and prejudicial to the public
interest. 1t was therefore obvious that
such a tax on the power Of States or
municipalities to make contracts was
prejudical to public policy and therefore
unconstitutional.
On the other matters involved in the
case of Hyde VS.. the Continental Trust
Company of New York city. and in the
case Of John G.. Moore vs. Joseph Il.
Miller. commissioners Of internal reve-
Due, Cor 20 iojunctioa 70 restrain them
from proceeding to carry out the law,
appealed from the courts Of the Dis
trict of Columbia, Chief Justice Fuller
stated that the court was equally dlvld-
ed. The judgment Of the lower courts
as far as it related to the payment of
the tax on rents and State and munich
pal bonds, was reversed. 10 the Moore
case, the effect of the courts action is
to affirm the refusal Of an INDUCTION
against the commissioner of internal
revenue.
Justices Field and White read inde-
pendent dissenting opinions.
Justice Field devoted some time to a
review of the provisions regarding
reuts, and denounced the principle
sought to be established by the income
tax law. Many of his conclusions were
in conformity with those expressed by
the Chief Justice. He also attacked
the Law on account of its lack of uuifor-
nifty and dwelt upon its exemptions and
the many determinations found therein.
Taking up the exemption of mutual 10
surauce companies. he declared that
they were conducted Oh lines identical
with those on which large corporations
were conducted-for the mutual bene-
6t Of stockholders. He i~nveigbed
against the exemption of saving and
building associations, which we're not
charitable institutions, but conducted
for either mouey.makiug or money.sell-
ing. All these exemptions stamped the
law as class legislation of the most pro-
nounced character. The law violated
every right and comfy guaranteed
under the Constitution. That there
should be any doubt about the subject
surpassed his comprehension. If the
census figures did not convince one of
the magnitude and injustice of the exs
emptions granted, he did not think
Congress could be convinced, Though
one rose from the dead" to convince it.
The law was also invalid in that it
levied a tax upon the salaries of the
1O1 judges Of the United States, many
of whom received small salaries. If the
provisions of the Constitution could be
set aside by the arbitrary act Of Con-