Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-05-21
THE DECISION IN FULL


Washington, May 2O.--Chief Justice
Fuller delivered the opinion of the court
IN the income tax cases to-day. The
epnlon In full was as follows:
whenever this court Is required to
pass upon the validity of an act of
.Ongress as tested by the fundamental
Nv enacted by the people. the duty i'm
psed demands in its discharge the ut
IVY, n'est aehberation and care and invokes
.ae deepest sense of responsibility; and
,nn Is especially so when the question
Involves the exercise of a great govern
nsntal power and brings into consider
wen as vitality affected by the decision
.aAl complex system of government so
.saeiousiy framed to secure and per-
r.asie an 'fndestructible Union, COM
S,ssu OF indestructible states"
We nave therefore with an anxious
ss'he 10 omit nothing which might in
~ way tend TO facilitate a decision of
" questions submitted, been aided by
ts',r sr sole arguments embodying the
sss Oh laborious research, and have
S'eiully examined these cases with
~ result that while our former con-
ssalons remain unchanged their scope
MI. pe enlarged by the acceptance of
r,,,. iogical consequences. The very
= cu VI the constitution as observed
y,., vnlsl Justice Marshall In one of his
1sest Judgments, requires that only
Heat outlines should be marked.
important objects designated and
NJ minor Ingredients which compose
/ s,s opleets be deducted from the ma
" me object themselves"
~ mastering 1t, then. we must never
A., srr 'nat ~ Is constitution that we
tI,Isa nseIetofore stated. the constitution
,l,sssa ivueral taxation into two great
d. cla,' he class of direct taxes, and
sra nras. vi duties, imports. and excuses,
ihs rs,iloes TWO rules which quality
grant of power as to each class.
ny power to lay direct taxes. amor
l,onns, among the several states in
II, nh TO their representation in
it,sr,Ip.1IAr branch of congress, a rep
u,s,,a,oh based upon population as
IA shnsu by the census, was plenary
slihenu.s olute; but to lay direct taxes
M ~ apportlonment was forbidden.
isri,snsS Mer TO lay duties, imposts and
,ksi Il, was subject to the qualification
nirpsh imposition must be uniform
OH the United States.
b ths PREVIOUS decision was confined
II IN consideration OF the validity
si.Ete NJ On the income from real
al horSuu on the Income from municI-
sas whs,, me question thus limited
q ma, ',ner such taxation was direct
tiiuuor "a me meaning OF the con-
a to ~ ena the court went no further
ss'a,e ~ TAX on incomes from real
he SAN TO hold that It fell within
TIE lnca class as the source whence
tar ,,e was derived-that IS that
hnnts II, realty and a tax upon the
shle a. .eIetrom were alike direct:
y bOhd. 10 the income from ,nunlcinai
q vant ~ could not be taken because
IA no NJ power TO tax the source
ire Of ~ was made to the ma
esset TAX as being direct or in
tsh q wv Permitted to broaden the
"a ttlch i, puty and TO determine 10
T. tpop ~ The two great classes n tay
sAerriss ' e n rents or products or
'.1;ks Or III teui estate or from bonds,
H. w helonss forms OF personal prop
.r1<iuds ,hss and We are unable TO
u1in the ,a ~, the enforced subtraction
p,,es,;ssenal property in the "a a. ,ear
z The n,er inherent from tax
a'tet operty itself that il is not
1ahlnr an indirect tax. IN the
,,'is 81 y the constitution. The
IA Ia ~ constitution are 10 be
NsiF Obvious sense and 10