The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-09
rs IT CONSTITUTIONAL
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE IN THE IN
COME TAX LAW TEST CASES.
Argument of MIR. Guthrie, Mr.. Seward
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Of Justices.

WASttlNG1ON, MITCH o.-lHefc WAS dii
unusual attendance of spectators in the
Supreme Court of the United States to-day
when the court convened. Mr.. Guthrie re-
sumed his argument for the appellants in
the income tax cases. He took up the case
where he left off yesterday. discussing the
bearing of the fifth amendment to the con-
stitutional provisions. Referring to the
fifth constitutional amendment, he said It's
provision that no person should be de-
prived of life. liberty or property without
due process of law had been made for the
protection of people against undue en-
croachments. He commended that any law
which would impose a tax on one class of
people and not on another in direct
contradiction to this amendment He then
returned to the discussion of the question
of taxation of corporations in a different
way from which individuals were taxed.
and said this was the point of transcendent
importance in the cases, teasserting that
the property of any corporation was the
property of individuals composing It, He
asserted that if Congress was permitted to
discriminate against corporations as to the
income tax law, they would virtually have
the power to nullify the right of States to
create corporations He closed with an APP
peal for a decision against class legislation
and appeal for equality in taxation.
Mr.. Seward followed, also speaking on be-
half of the appellants. He argued against
the constitutionality of the income tax.
He devoted himself to the discussion of the
question to whether the tax was di-
rect tax, and argued that if it was it must
under the provisions Of the Constitution,
be apportioned according to population Re-
ferring to the decision in the Springer case,
unfolding the war income tax, he said it
40
to sustain law enacted to maintain the
government at a critical time. But now
the circumstances were quite different with
the country enjoying peace He felt that
the Springer decision would not operate as
bar to the prosecution of this case.
In response to question by Justice Gray,
Mr.. Seward said there had never been a
time in the history of the country that
State taxes were designated as other than
tax had been levied in most of the colonies
prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
The people had then regarded it as a direct
tax and when the words direct tax were
adopted in the Constitution they must
necessarily have been given the meaning
attached to them among the people at
large.
Mr. Seward was discussing the question
of apportionment when Chief Justice Fuller
interrupted with the question: Suppose
there should not be sufficient amount
arising from the taxation of incomes of
over $1,000 to meet the requirements of a
1T could be DONE replied Mr. Seward
ION the basis of population, which is the
seward Sew dH. Closed just BEFORE O'clock. MI
Assistant Attorney-general Whitney then
presented the outlines of the government
case.
He explained the difference between the
two cases from New York and the one
arising in the District, saying that in the
Moore case effort had been made to Sc
cure an injunction against the collection of
the tax. while in the other two cases the
off hrd hear maj n fhn rapxr "
ment of the tax, the first being an action
against the Commissioner of Internal Reve-
panies. of which the appellants We're stock
holders. Mr. Moore, he said, was a rich
ssa an Coo who possessed az income exceeding
any property that could be reached as a
lien for the collection of the tax. Mr..
Moore had declared that this law could not
apply to an unconstitutional tax. but the
court held that an unconstitutional tax was
still a tax.
How can Congress make a law compell-
ing a man to do a thing which the Con-
stitution says ii cannot?' asked Justice
At the suggestion of Chief Justice Fuller
that further discussion of the point was
unnecessary. Mr.. Whitney did not attempt
to reply, and passed to the Pollock
case. He said the government had not con-
sidered it worth while to go back for CEN
tax and he devoted himself. to considera-
ton of the origin of the phrase III the Con-
stitution, and not TO its use since. He said
that Congress in considering its present
law before its enactment had discussed the
question as TO where the limit could be
drawn. so as to protect the poorer classes
and the figure $1,000 had been agreed on
after a very thorough comparison of opin-
ions. As TO the discrrnina lion against cor
porations, he conteDded that the corpora
tons income was necessarily different from
that Of individuals, and hence there must
be a different basis for fixing the tax
Mr.. Whitney had not concluded when the
court, at 4 O'Clock. adjourned until Monday
at 10 O'Clock when, after Mr.. Whitney
RN-SRnQfnr H.dmlndS he
heard in the case, and he in turn will be
followed by Attorney general Olney.