The San Francisco call., 1895-05-21
STRIKES AT THE POOR.
Justice Jackson's Bitter Denunciation
of the Action of His Con-


WASHINGTON, D. c., May 2O-The
views of no other member of the court have
been the subject of so much speculation as
Justice Jackson's, who, it was thought
would be practically referee in the case.
Justice Jackson said his health had not
been equal to the task of preparing for
NAL decision, and proceeded to give an
outline of his views from notes. His voice
was at first feeble, but as he became inter-
ested in his subject he was able to speak
with more strength, although his reading
was slow and interrupted by frequent fits
of coughing.
In beginning, Justice Jackson announced
that he concurred fully in the dissents ex-
pressed by Justice White on the former
hearing, and the other Justices who dis
sented to-day. He said:
1t is not and cannot be denied that under
the broad and comprehensive taxing power
conferred by the constitution, Congress
has the authority to tax incomes from whatso-
ever source arising, whether from real estate,
personal property or otherwise. 1t is equally
clear that Congress, in exercise of its author
ity, has the discretion to impose upon tax in
comes above designated amount The un-
denying and controlling question now pre-
sented is whether the taxation of incomes
received from land and personally are subject
to the rule of apportionment.
1t was not found, said the Justice, that
there was any lack of uniformity in the
legislation, and he could not understand
the principle upon which the court reached
the conclusion that because one branch of
the law was invalid for the reason that
the tax was not laid by the rule of appor-
tionment it thereby invalidated another
branch resting upon the rule of uniform
ity and against which there was not valid
objection. If the conclusion of the court
was sound the principle could, with equal
propriety, be extended to the entire tariff
act.
The court took a wrong method of ar
irving at the meaning of the words ''direct
tax,' depending on the opinions of writers
since the constitution, who agreed on
nothing. 1t was never contemplated by
the trainers of the constitution to reach by
direct taxation subjects of partial distribu-
ton. What would be thought of direct
tax laid upon cotton at SO much bale, on
tobacco or rice, property not existing in
majority Of the States?
They contemplated the apportionment
of direct tax on subject matter having
general distribution among the States.
They never contemplated anything
as a direct tax but that laid
directly upon property itself accord
ing to valuation of assessment. No
intention could be attributed to the
trainers of the constitution to make any
tax direct tax which it was possible to
apportion. If tax could not be appor-
toned among several States with reason
able approximation to equality to all
citizens of the country that should be
evidence that it was not direct tax within
the meaning of the constitution.
this rule, this new rule adopted by the court?
A tax is laid by the General Government
against all money on hand or on deposit upon
every citizen OF the country at given rate
When laid, a few persons come before the court
and say: "My deposits were derived from the
proceeds of farm nrodnce. or from bonds and