The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-05-22
WORK OF THE COURT
Text Of the Decision In the Income
Tax Case.
WHY THE MEASURE HET DEATH BLOW

Chief Justice EULER, Who is Ciassed as
Against the Law. In a Long But
interesting Deoision-Case Fully
Subjected to Review.
WASHINGTON, May e1.-The United
States supreme court yesterday decid-
ed the income tax to be unconstitution-
al, the court dividing as follows:
Against the law-Chief Justice Full
ler, Justices Field, Gray. Brewer and
Shiras.
For the law-Just;cos Harlan, Brown,
Jackson and White.
When the justices took their seats, it
was observed that the chief justice had
IN unusually large bundle of manu-
script in his hands, but nothing was
thought of this, as a score or more OF
opinions were expected. But inme-
diately there was sensation, for
ignoring an almost wholly unbroken
rule, which reserves she announcement
Of opinions by the chief justice to the
last, Justice Fuller plunged at once in
to the income tax cases. he read his
opinion In full, occupying about one
hours time, and spoke with an earnest
ness that manifested the depth Of the
feeling expressed in the opening SEN
tences Of the opinion. In delivering
the opinion on the income tax case
Chief Justice Fuller said:
Whenever this court is required to pass upon
the validity OF an act Of congress as tested BY
the fundamental law enacted by the people.
the duty imposed demands IN Its discharge the
utmost deliberation and care. and invokes the
deepest sense Of responsibility. And this Is
especially 50 when the question involves the
exercise OF a great governmental power, and
brings into consideration as vitally affected By
the decision. that complex system OF govern
ment so sagaoiously framed 70 secure and per-
petunte an indestructable union, composed OF
indestructaole stste5 We lave therefore an
anxious desire to omit nothing which might In
any degree tend to eluoidnte the question sub
nittcd eod aided By further able arguments
enoodying the fruits Of elaborate research,
carefully re-exanined these cases, with the re-
suit, that while our former conclusions remain
unchanged, their scope must be enlarged BY
the acceptance OF their logical consequence
The very nature Of the constitution, Is OBJ
served by Chief Justice Marshall, in one OF his
greatest judgments. requires that only It's
great outlines should be marked, its import
ant objects designated, and the minor ingre-
dients which compose those objects he de-
duoed from the nature OF the objects them
selves In considering this question, then. we
must never forget that It Is constitution thai
we are exposing.
Glasses Of Federal Taxation.
AS heretofore STAYED, the constitution di-
vided federal taxation into two classes the
class OF direct taxes, and the class OF duties,
imposts and excuses, and prescribed two rules
which qualified the grant Of power to each
class The power to lay direct taxes appor-
toned among the several states IN proportion
to their representation in the popular branch
OF congress, representation based on popula-
sion as ascertained By the census. was plenary
and absolute; but to lay direct taxes without
superintendent was forbidden. The power to
lay duties, imposts and excises was subject to
the qualification that the imposition must be
Uniform throughout the United States.
Our previous decision was confined to the
consideration OF the validity Of the tax on the
income from real estate and on the income
from municipal bonds. The question thus
limited was whether such taxation was direct
or not In the meaning Of the constitution; ,and
the court went 10 farther, as to the tax on the
fncone from real estate, than TO hold that 1t
fell within the same class as the source whence
the income was derived, that Is, that ts1
upon the reality and q tax upon the receipts
therefron were alike direct; while ss 10 the In
come from nunicira! bonds. that could not be
taxed because Of want OF power to tax the
source. and no reference was made to the na-
ts1re OF the tax as being direct or indirect
We are now permitted to broaden the field
OF iaQuiry, end to determine TO which OF the
two great classes . te1 upon persons's en-
tire income, whether derived from rents. Or
products, or otherwise. OF real estate. or from
bonds, stocks, OF other forms Of personal prop.
erty, belongs; and We are unable to conclude
that the enforced subtraction from the yield
OF I'll ehe owners real or personal property, in
the manner prescribed, IS so different from
.ax upon the property itself, that it IS not o
direct but an indirect tax, in the meaning OF
the constitution.
Meaning Of the Constitution.
We know OF no reason for holding otherwise
than that the words direct taxes on the
one hand and duties. imports and excises, on
the other, were used in the constitution In
their natural and obvious sense; nor, In ar
riying at what those terms embrace, do we
6eroelve any ground for enlsrginS them be-
youd, or narrowing them within their natural
and obvious import at tho time the constitu-
ton was framed and ratified. and. passing
from the text. We regard the conclusion reach
Cd as inevitable. whom the circumstances
which surrounded the convention and control
LED It's action and the views OF those who
framed and those who adopted the constitu-
tiou are considered.
We do not care to retravel ground already
treversed but some observations may be
added.
The chief justice then reviewed the
history Of the struggles in the con-
stitutional convention as to the power
to be granted the government in the
matter of laying taxes: the views OF
early constitutional writer's and ex.
Founders; and the early decisions OF
the court, and continued:
The constitution prohibits any direct Tax
unless in proportion to numbers as ascertained
by the census; and IN the light OF the circum-
stances to which we have referred. 1t is not ar
evasion Of that prohibition to hold that q gen.
eral unapportioned tax imposed upon ell prop
erty owners es body for or IN respect Of theiI
property is not direct. In the meaning Of the
constitution, but confined TO the income there
from.
H00tcVer inc speculative VIC" Oh pOllLIcSl
economists or revenue reforms may be, cap
IL be properly held that the constition taken
IN its plain and obvious sense. and with due
regord to the circumstance attending the
formation OF the government. AUTHORIZES 6
general unapportioned tax On the products OF
tho farm and the rents Of real estate. Slthost
Imposed merely because Of ownership and
with no possible means Of escape from pay
ment, as belonging to a totally different class
from that which includes the property from
whence the income proceeds.
There con be but one answer. unless the con
ssitutonal restriction is to be treated es utterly
illusory and futile and the object OF It's trainers
defeated.
We find that 1t IS impossible to hold that g
fundamental reQuisttiou, deemed so tnportan,
as TO be enforced BY two provisions, one affirm
atire and one negative. can be refined away BY
zo-.ad Gi.tInctinns hetGeau that which gives