The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-04-17

real estate, and that not being laid ac
cording to apportlonment, 1t was IN
valid
?. That it was not uniform and 6
violation of the constitutional require
ment that such taxes shall be laid with
uniformity. Under this head came the
exceptions in favor of those persons
who were not in possession of an in
come of $4,000; of mutual insurance
companies. savings banks. and part
nerships, all organized for and doing
the same business as that of corpora
tons authorized by the States. These
exceptions, it was held. were arbitra
~ and capricious, and not based upon
sound public policy.
3. That incomes from investments
in State and municipal bonds could
not be taxed.
The Chief Justice proceeded to a
consideration of the constitutional re-
quirements with respect of the imposi
ton of the two forms of taxation, di
rect and indirect. and said that the
trainers of the Constitution intended
to make the consent of those who
were expected to pay essential to the
validity of any tax. They had just
come out of a conflict upon the great
principle of taxation with representa-
ton and they We're intended to go to-
gether-that Congress should so i'm
pose tax that it would fall with even
force and effect upon all OF the con-
stituents of those who voted for il.
The States represented in the Con
stitutional Convention, said the Chief
Justice surrendered their right to levy
imposIS, eXcises and duties to the
General Government They looked
forward to the time when great States
to the west of them would be coming
into the Union, and when they gave
up that right they did so with conf
dence that the rule of uniformity
would be observed in the laying of
taxes by the Congress.
TIE first question to be considered,
said Chief Justice Fuller, was whether
or not tax ON rents is direct tax
within the meaning of the Constitu-
ton. 1t had always been held, he
said, that a tax on estate. real or per-
sonal. was direct tax bat ii might
be that the Constitution had a differ
ent meaning, and that it was to be ap-
piled to this case. In that view it be-
came necessary to inquire what were
direct taxes at the time the Constitu-
ton was adodted.
The Chief Justice then made eXten-
Sive quotations from mthe history Of the
debates IN the Congress on the subject
of taxation. The inference from them
he said, was that the general distinc-
ton between direct and indirect taxa
ton was well understood by the mem
bers Of the Convention, and that the
expectation was that a direct tax would
be the last resort of Congress.
The celebrated case of Hyton VS. the
United States, decided March 3, 1896,
was then referred to at great length,
the one in which it was held that a
tax on carriages was not direct tax.
The several opinions filed by the JUS
tees were quoted, and Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Fuller asserted that IN none of
them was there any expression of opln-
ion as to whether or not anything ex-
cept land and capitalization taxes was
a direct tax, but they were confined to
the case at hand. The case, he said,
seemed to turn upon the declaration
of Hamilton as to what constituted dl-
rect taxes; if there had been refer
ence to the decisions of the country
from which the United States derived
its jurisprudence it would have been
fatal, form Great Britain income taxes
had alwaysbeen treated as direct taxes.
The opinion then proceeded to re-
view the decisions made by the Su-
preme Court in cases arising under
the law of 1861, which, the Chief JUS
tice said, counsel had contended declar-
ed that an income tax was not direct
tax and must be regarded as controll-
ing in the case under review. The
principle of stare decisis, he continued,
applied only to such cases as are di-
rectly in point. No Court had ever
held itself bound by any part of de-
cision not necessary to decide the case
before it. The duty of any Court
charged with the construction of con-
stitutional provisions was not to ex-
tend decision On question. If an er-
ror of principle was likely thereby to
be perpetuated or committed. In the
light Of these observations the opinion
considered the decisions down to that
in the Springer case and concluded
that they were all distingulshable
from the one in hand.
The Springer case was no exception
to the rule, inasmuch as it did not
present the point raised in this case. IS
a tax on rents a tax on real estate? The
Court, the opinion continued, was un-
able to see any distinction between a
tax on real estate and a tax on the
rents arising from such real estate.
What is land but the income thereof. I.
was asked. The constitutional require
ment was that direct taxes should be
laid only by apportionment
among the States according to
population, and this tax was
a O1r6Ct L1S. 1ueIt H0S uO OlSlAlAS-
ton between an annual tax on the
value of the land and tax on the land
itself. Constitutional provisions, it
was said, could not be thus evaded ;
it was the substance, and not the form
or shadow, that was to prevail in con-
STRUNG them. Upon this point there
were many decisions, and some of
them were quoted.
What the Constitution intended to
prevent, said the Chief Justice, was
that no tax should be laid or the resi-
dents of any State By the representa-
tives of other States. The exercise Of
the power to levy direct taxes was to
be restricted to extraoI i,uary occasions
conclusion, therefore, upon this
point the...Ch;ef Justice announced
that the Court were of the opinion
that that part OF the law imposing
taxes upon rents obtained from real
estate: was invalid:
|5- Next in order the opinion consider
ed the third, objection to the law ;