New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-21

aside by reason of a doubt to the correctness 4
those adaacaons or bsGaus SsvS we BEEN %ay 0ssDs
decided. II the Court had had before u Inc me, wealth
q wnh Of spf this to upon
me orHt never to ieg!sate in raising the
Of 6 the saa II the eSe Of
or be- crippled in great political crises by its nanil'
the history Of this country such eyigencies have
arisen and twice has Congress ca,ied upon ne
lion OF an income tax-once In the throes Of civil
and once In the sSye b pi of Mr. %
tice Baldwin In Grignon's lessee W. Asior tnougn
referring to dereni b si sc OF uSr
1--WE do deem 1t necessary now or nereaiter 20
crscn '@ of hs Court in that
preceded 1t rested; they are fouhhed on rne o..st
re has consecrcted thc the OF the states
have followed. and this cour, has never nepsst t
the repose Of the country depends-tltles acquired
under the proseednss Of GSqs Ia D eoatera ac
ton or can know what Is MS own
A TAX on RENTS AN INDIRECT TAX.
II IS true that We have often held that what can
no: be done directly cannot be done indlrecty' out
this applies Only when 1t cannot be done az AL
directly or Indirectly; but II It can De zone oecV
in one manner-L e.. BY the .ule OF appoFt.ohmeh'-
1t does not follow that /; may not oe 1ol,e nnr ay
in another There - no wan 81 rc,sin M
s nayer fl must impose direct taxes by the rule
of lpport,onmcn Inc power sum naia ~ mi
e sr1l, 70 ang Of opinion aa upon rents
il IN Indirect tax upon lands am CRY, arisgn - "s
TSai. IS in ceSain particulars, want OF uni ,h.
formity in this law. which MAJ mar iha Il was stndt.
81, Nv designed not only 10 snt the purdst Vi 1r
Ion upo.: ne Inns from It's operation There il
certainly no want O. uniformity within e ha3
% me iee Uniformity there referred 70 i errii9ra;
Only d.ougnbororgh W. BaHe w, " words Of The
;.onstituton the tax mus he Uniform '"'o"s"'''
the IneI however Of the Constitution tax
when is wanting unifSrIaiiy among 'ne 'f Rat
bers Of the sAns casI LesatuIe OF power
f. make exemptions. provided such i psrhiTrary
o created solely for the purpose % p cvilized
person body of persons i,,1s ~ - small incomes
vhcn IL would be manifest cruelty 20 "a ,hs
power TO make sucn eXenputomS ~ me iesIslaturs
a;n0u, rs as tnat power not .antonly abused
ana 5 80 .s's rs bound to respect it. .,o,
the eou bs law there Is an exemption o. 500 when
Indicates purpose on the part OF Cohs'e,S $3.50
me DuIne sr ~ Inc we,oio II men who nave
an Income o property DeyoNi INC. ie;cn, "a sav
are not the IN 0' other ~ards enlightened taxation +
imposed upon property ana no. pwrca o, revenue
aaAeS now rractlcally obsolete. The exemption OK
si,o is designed undolptsy, 20 Of fami!ies
ana the tact tnat is not applied 70 no 80
BY 1na fact I Tne sere thsi.
n,otlis are OF course. deducted IN Ae am ,a ,nai
"a ~ cnrr,sDoning expenses Of private lnu'Nirua'
as me ,u,,hpe from tie earnng, OF Ms business
The moment ths profits o. epip".an - Woo5 al.
farhes 10 them IN the hands u siNn ,,i ,s,,r,rcs
The fact that savings BANK aii ~ nsIicv.hoders
COZ ,nn,n,.I is expic able on the theory ,wnetns!
a sc,,nl one or not need MT stop 70 inquire, Una.
lion intended as schemes inr ~, a 80. an sbuss
money ana II this exemption operates as Very
wealthy corpo'Hon' - Psnrv 20 10 the exemp-
| ion Of the whole class
REGRET AT THE DECISION
| :, il d.neult H. oyere5tmate the inportano
| Of these cases certainly eA2n'l oV,ra'''v INC ~
| 49,, feel At the deposition made of them ny ths
court f. is meyer 81 Night thing % fet aside tue ~
| u,rate VIII Of me Legislature, anl In my op's
am d shout, ns.er -. ,one eve ~ upon ne 'eatr1
pr,of of lts oouhc, vain tn' i"nI''".',, h.
| los ccl Tor tho 'pnnuiuuon MI n'i % n'p' IN
| :, u.f.oW And trrnultAl oon4ifucNun MMvn snt ~
| limit ,hf ne,rHuy powers 'l ',nsa,,sD ,,' s,r,n TX.
,ns io.n W the lnrqua5io frttu''n ~ ms law, ~
even the whoc la". '2' I'll "' '"rl"e-' but 40 X
'nplca a declaration That 'N't} 'n'om" iaN "' wy
decision ins. lf'a n,ln'.t ~ ,,n",,ni class Hy
in, Ii,iion casc apl has lain practically Hormam,
nlley, nS''I mo-, tis Iiw alone but every similar
! LAW that II not based upon "a .p'.sssD'v ,i,'1
| ia c1nnred up 10 dissuadc Congress from loy,ns
| taxes upon the people IN proportion 10 'her "O'''
"vnie 'T' have no doubt tia. Congress VIII NM
some means OF surmountlns the iI's,h. ,n'ss..I
my far Il that ~ some moment q Natoha W,
~, decision win rise up % Illustrate itH WI mo
| paralvzc rs hope 1t may not PROV ~, ,.s
| inst stop toward the suDmerSente oi tAc Ioe'''s
~ IN, p.oI!e in a sorGid spOi.sin OF wealth.. $500.
Believing as do that the decision OF me ooHis
In this great case is fraught with mmeas1ra sns
| danger 10 the future OF the country, anu r.
proachos .Lc proportions Of u Naio..al cl.aH!' -
| feel II Il duty 10 en'or my protest against It,
Justice White read the last opinion IN the
case stating nineteen different points , upon
which he rested his adherence 70 the views
! hitherto expressed by him in opposition 10 'Hs
| iudgment Of the Court.