St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-09

the several states according to pOpu-
lation.
Referring to the question of direct
taxation, he said that it was not to
be presumed that the trainers of the
constitution were not more capable
of approaching what they were do
ing when they provided for the diff
ferentiation of imports.
The trainers of the fundamental law
had before them more prominently
than any other thought the idea that
taxation and representation should go
hand in hand. The constitution was
the result of compromise between
the states and the federal government,
whereby the states surrendered the
right of levying imposts, duties and
excuses, but it was evident did not
mean to transfer to the general gov
eminent the right to levy direct taxes,
except in cases of great emergencies
This compact, the chief justice said,
had been observed up to the time of
the passage of the act of August, 1894.
The chief justice held that in taxing
the income derived from land itself,
it virtually and to all intents and pur-
poses taxed the land itself, for, he
asked, what was the land to any one
but for the profit derived from it?
The name of the tax was unimpor-
tant, but the effect was of vast con-
sequence, and as there could be neither
distinction nor material difference he
tween taxing the land and the profit
derived from it, the court had reached
the opinion that this portion of the
law was invalid and could not be sus-
tanned.
The same conclusion was reached in
regard to the provision for taxing
state, county and municipal bonds.
He said, in effect. that it was clearly
never intended by the states to dele
gate authority to the national con-
gress to weaken their credit by pro-
viding tax upon their instrumental
ties and revenue agencies. Such an ex-
ercise of power was repugnant to the
constitution, and therefore the portion
of the law putting it into execution
must always be declared invalid
On the other points involved the
opinion did not venture, because of the
even division of the court. The chief
justice was not prepared to give out
the full text of the decision, but fur
nished the following summary of the
concluding portion of it to the press:
First-That by the constitution fed
eral taxation is divided into two great
classes-direct taxes and duties, i'm
posts and excuses.
Second-The imposition of direct
taxes is governed by the rule of APP
portionment among the several states,
according to numbers and the imposi-
ton of duties, imposts and excuses by
the rule of uniformity throughout the
United States.
Third-That the principle that taxa
ton and representation together was
intended to be and was preserved in
the constitution by the establishment
| of the rule of apportionment among the
several states, SO that such apportion-
| ment should be according to numbers
| in each state.
Fourth-That the states surrendered
| their power to levy imposts and to
| regulate commerce to the general gov
| eminent and gave it the concurrent
| power to levy direct taxes in reliance
| on the protection afforded by the rules
| prescribed, and that the compromises
| of the constitution cannot be disturbed
| by legislative action.
Fifth-That these conclusions result
| from the text of the constitution, and
are supported by the historical evil
dence furnished by the circumstances,
| surrounding the framing and adoption
| of that instrument and the views of
those who framed and adopted it.
SiXth-That the understanding and
| expectation at the time of the adoption
of the constitution was that direct
| h.
| general government, except under the
pressure Of extraordinary exigency and
| such has been the practice down to
Aug. Is, 1894. If the power to do so, is
to be exercised as an ordinary and US
ual means of supply, that fact fur
nishes an additional reason for circum-
spection in disposing of the present
| case.
seventh-That taxes on real estate
belong to the class of direct taxes, and
| that the taxes on the rent or income
of real estate, which is the incident
! of it's ownership, belong to the same
| class.
| Eighth-That by no previous decision
of this court has this question been
adjudicated to the contrary OF the con-
illusions now announced.
| Ninth-That so much of the act of
Aug. Is, 1894, as attempts to impose a
tax upon the rent or income Of real
estate without apportionlnent is in
| valid.
The court is further of opinion that
the act of Aug. Is, 1894, is Invalid so
far as it attempts 10 levy tax upon
the income derived from municipal
bonds. AS a 1aunicipal corporation is
the representative Of the state and
one of the instrumentalities of the
state government, the property and
revenues of municipal corporations are
not subjects of federal taxation, nor
is the income derived from state,
county and municipal securities since
taxation on the interest therefrom
operates on the power to borrow be-
fore it is exercised and has sensible
Influence on the contract, and, there
fore, such tax is tax on the power
of the state and their instrumental
ties to borrow money, and conse,
quently repugnant to the constitution
Upon each of the other petitions ar
gued at bar, towit: First, whether the
! void provisions as to rents and in.