The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-04-13


and profits on personal property. and
not being apportioned is in violation of
section 2, article 1. of the constitution.
Second-That the law, II not imposing
a direct tax, is nevertheless unconstitu-
tional in that its provisions are not uni
form throughout the United States. and
do not operate with the same force and !
effect upon the subject of the tax,
wherever found, or in that II provides |
exceptions in favor of individuals and |
copartnerships, while denying all ex-
emptions to corporations having similar |
incomes derived from like property |
values and provides for other exemp- |
lions and inequalities in violation of
section 8, article l, of the constitution.
Third-That the act provides no ex-
emption of the tax upon incomes de-
rived from stocks and bonds of states
of the United States and counties and
municipalities therein, which stocks and
bonds are no proper subject for the tax
ing power of congress. The income
from these securities in the United
States amounts to over $3.50, 900 900 per
annum, on which the total annual in
come tax would be $1,300,000. He then
took up the constitutional points in
volved, dwelling upon the fact that the
constitution required. the apportion-
ment of direct taxes and uniformity in
excuses and imports. He also dwelt up
on the question of representation and
taxation which was. he said. the fore
| most one when the constitution was
adopted.
He then took up the question of tax
! on rents and in so doing discussed at
considerable length the question of di-
rect taxes as considered at the time of
the framing of the constitution. The
trainers of the constitution were, he
said, we'll versed in the government of
the colonies and European countries.
and were well versed in the literature
| of the period, including works on polit-
ical economy, and we'll calculated TO
pass intelligently on matters of this
kind. He quoted various supreme court
decisions and sought to show that while
the income tax question had been be-
fore the court the question had only
been considered as applying to the point
at issue in particular cases. Coming
down to the present tariff act he said
the law was passed in a time of pro
found peace and il was to be taken as
evidence that congress had sought in
this matter to form precedent and es-
tablish a departure from established
lines, and II therefore became important
to inquire into the circumstances with
some attention to detail. For the pur-
pose of comparison he went back to the
enactment Of the income tax during the
civil war. He quoted from the decision
in the Springer case, giving the history
Of the case and devoting much attention
to it, as he said the defense had appar-
emily relied upon this more generally
than upon any precedent. 1t is; he said
conceded in all cases, from Hylton to
Springer. that taxes on land are direct
taxes, while in some of them 1t is deter
7 mined that taxes on rents derived from
land are indirect taxes. Was there, ht
$ asked, any distinction between a tax OF
1 land and on an income derived from the
land? What, in other words. was lant
but the profit on it? The name Of the
I tax is unimportant. and the court hai
been unable to see any distinction. III
e closed by saying that the court haC
d reached the conclusion that the tax OF
G rents was invalid. Chief Justice Fulle
1 then took up the question of taxation
G on municipal and state bonds The de
cision was also adverse 10 this part 0
n the law, as repugnant to the constitu
= ton. On other points the court was di
/ vided. and therefore no opinion could b
given.
Il In conclusion the chief justice state,
e that this opinion upon 1.-The Pollac
Il case" covered the other two cases.
JUSTICE FIELD.
y Fuller was followed by Justice Field
i who read the first dissenting opinion
v Justice Fields opinion was largely de
7, voted to a review of the provisions re
= garding rents and was a vigorous de
IN nunciatiOn of the principle sought to b
IS established by the income tax law, hi
v conclusions being in conformity to thos
"a announced by the chief justice. He ais
n attacked the law on account of lack {
o uniformity and dwelt upon it's exemI
20 tons and discrimination, which wa
\ he said, class legislation. He devote
20 especial attention to the exemptions {
T., savings banks. mutual insurance con
20 panies and building and loan assOcif
II ions. He quoted census figures to sho
to the extent of the operations of thes
g. companies, and said that if these fac
were not convincing congress could NJ
N be convinced, though one rise from II
10 dead" He took issue with those wi
o. contended that there could be no legit
mate limitation upon the power of col
,s gress to impose taxes.
= Justice Field concluded by sayir
that he was of the opinion that the el
No tire law should be declared unconstit1
ct tional.
ct Justice Field says the exemption
from the operation of a tax always or
If ates inequalities. Those not exempt,
id must in the end bear an addition
he burden, or pay more than their shaI
A law containing arbitrary exemption
can in no just sense be termed uniforl