The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1895-05-24
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That Is the Income Tax Law
Decision.
The United States Supreme Court by Five
to Four Declares the Act Invalid
Opinion by Chief Justice
Fuller.

Fuller.
WASHINGTON, May 21.-Thc United
States supreme court yesterday de-
clared the income tax law unconstitu-
tional in toto. Chief Justice Fuller read
the decision of the majority. reading
from manuscript. Five justices were
against the constitutionality of the law
to four for it. Those against were Chief
Justice Fuller and Justices Field, Gray.
Brewer and Shiras. Those for the
law, Justices, Harlan, White, Brown
and Jackson.
All of the members of the court were
present, including Justice Jackson.
As soon as the justices had taken
their seats the chief justice began the
delivery of the main opinion. After
some preliminary talk he said:
LAS heretofore stated, the constitu-
ton divided federal taxation into two
great classes-the class of direct taxes
and the class of duties, imposts and
excises-and prescribed two rules
which qualified the grant of power as
to each class. The power to lay direct
taxes apportioned among the several
states in proportion to their representa-
ton in the popular branch of congress,
a representation based on population
ascertained by the census, was plenary
and absolute, but to lay direct taxes
without apportionment was forbidden.
The power to lay duties, imposts and
excuses was subject to the qualifica-
ton that the imposition must be uni
form 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 constitu-
ton and the court went no farther as
to the tax on the incomes from real es-
tate than to hold that it fell within
the same class as the source whence
the income was derived, that is, that
tax upon the realty and a tax upon the
receipts therefrom were alike direct;
while as to the income from municipal
bonds. that could not be taxed because
OF want of power to tax the source.
and no reference was made to the ma
ture of the tax as being direct or indi-
rect.
I'VE are now permitted to broaden
the field of inquiry and determine to
which of the two great classes a tax
upon persons entire income, whether
derived from rents or products or other
wise of real estate, or from bonds,
stocks or other forms of personal prop
erty belongs and we are unable 10 con-
clude that the enforced subtraction
from the yield of all the owners's real or
personal property in manner prescrib bed
is so different from a tax upon the
itself that it is not a direct
but an indirect tax in the meaning of
the constitution. The words of the
are to be taken in their
obvious sense, and to have unreasonable |
In Gibbons VS.. Ogden. |
Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall, with his |
usual felicity, said: AS men, whose |
require no concealment, |
generally employ the words which
most directly and aptly express
the ideas they intend to convey, |
the enlightened patriots who framed |
our constitution and the people
who adopted it must be understood to
have employed words in their natural |
sense. and to have intended what they |
have said We know of no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words
direct taxes on the one hand and 'du-
ties, impoSts and excuses on the other
were used in the constitution in their
natural and obvious senses nor in ar
irving at what those terms embrace.
do we perceive any ground for enlarC
ing them beyond or narrowing them
within their natural and obvious i'm
port at the time the constitution was
framed and ratified.
The chief justice next discussed the
reasons for the constitutional provi-
sions regarding direct taxation. The
states had plenary powers of taxation.
but gave up the great sources of reve-
nue. derived from commerce. and re.
tanned the power of levying taxes and
duties covering anything other than
excuses, but in respect to them the
range of taxation was narrowed by the
power granted to the federal govern
ment over interstate com merce. While
IHeN granted Inc power OF dppOELlOn-
ing direct taxation they secured to the
states the opportunity to pay the
amount apportioned and to recour
from their own citizens in the most
feasible way.
The conclusions of the court were a.
follows:
First, we adhere to the opinion a.
ready announced that taxes on real
estate being indisputably direct taxes.
taxes on the rents on income of real
estate are equally direct taxes.
Second, we are of opinion that taxes
on personal property or on the income
If personal property are likewise direct
taxes.
Third, the tax imposed by sections
y to 81 inclusive, of the act of 1894, so
far as it falls on the income of real
estate and on personal property being
4 direct tax within the meaning of the
and therefore unconstitu-
.ional and void, because not appor-
toned according to representations, all
hose sections constituting otze tllt.re-
scheme of taxation are necessarily in
valid.
THE DEGREES hereinbefore enteked
n this court will be vacated. The de- Il
.rees below will be reversed and the
asses remanGed with instructions to
yrant the relief prayed"
rIfnpfnQs