Birmingham age-herald., 1895-04-09

policy and therefC r unconstitutional. ssf
 On the matters involved in the case of Hyde v5. the Consolidated Trust company of New York city and in the case of John G. Moore vs. Joseph s. Miller, commis- siouer of internal revenue, for ah injunc- ton to restrain him from proceeding to carry out the law, appealed from the courts of the District of Columbia, Chiet Justice Fuller stated that the court was equally divided. The judgment of the lower cour as far as it related to ihs tpa5- ment of tax on rents and state and munict- pal bonds was reversed. In the Mooreesse the effect of the courts action is to affirm the refusal of an injunction against the commissioner of internal revenue. ff
 DISSENTING OPINIONS.
 Justices Field and White read dissenting opinions. Justice Field devoted some time to a review of the questions regarding rents aud denounced the principle sought to be established by the incoms tax law. Many of his conclusions were in conformity with those expressed by the chief justice. He also attacked the law on account of it's lack of uniformity and dwelt upon it's exemp- .tions and the many discriminations found therein.
 Taking up the exemption of mutual in- surance com panies, he declared that they were conducted on lines identical with those on which large corporations were conducted-for the mutual benefit of stock holders. He inveighed against the exemp- ton of savings and building associations, wh ch were not charitable institutions, but conducted for either money making or money-saving. All these exemptions stamped the law as class legislation of the most pronounced character. The law vio- lated every right and comity guaranteed under the constitution. That there should be any doubt about the subject surpassed his comprehension. If the census figures did not convince one of tue mag nitude and injustice of exemptions granted, he did not think congress could be convinced, 'sthough one rose from the dead' to con- vince it..
 The law was also invalid in that it levied tax upon the salaries of the 10l judges of the United States, many of whom received small salaries. If the provisions of the consultation could be set aside by the arbi- trary act of congress, where, he asked, would this power end? It was but a step ping stone to other and greater acts that would eventually open the way for war between the poor and the rich. Such a power assumed by congress and permitted to go1 unchalenged would mark the hour when the decadence of the nation would commence.
 If the limit by the exemption could bs fixed at $4000 future congresses might fix 1t at $15 1000 or S20, GOO, thus compelling one class alone to pay the tax. Or the limit might be fixed at such an amount as a board of walking delegates might deter mine to be necessary.
 h conclusion Justice Field announced hi1 opinion that the whole law of 1894 should be declared to be null and void.
 JUSTICE WHITE
 prefaced his dissenting opinion with the statement that the custom of rendering long dissents in 8 court of last resort WAS more honored in the breach than in the ob- servance. Ef
 Their only effect was to weaken the effi- cacy of the opinion of the court. Justice White said he should not speak today but for h fon hat fhn |, ,ad nu, rrrt lad and set aside established precedsnts and the settled and uniform doctrine of the su- preme court down to the present time. He, regretted that at this late day this court should thus overthrow and nnllify an actlof congress supported and affirmed by all the text writers and by every decision of the supreme court of the United States. When the fathers constr ucted our form of govern ment they gave it not limited, but un- limited power to levy taxes, with but one The assertion that the constitutional power Of congress was limited was, he thought, the fundamental error in the reasoning of the majority of this court. Tne great question bsfore a the court was: Is the income tax a direct tax? That question was practically decided 100 years ago, and he did not deem 1t necessary to enter into an elaborate review of the cases that had been decided. In briefly re- viewing the cases presented to the court he observed that the arguments made and the citations used in this case were the same as those brought out in the Hyton case, and now this court was asked to again take up the question adjudicated by an unanimous court 100 years ago.
 JUSTICE HARLAN
 was of the opinion that tax on the gains, profits and income derived from the rent of lands was not direct tax; that under numerous decisions of this court the iu- come derived from municipal bonds was not the subject of specific taxation in any form by the United States. la other mat ters he was in accord with Justice White.
 At 2:35 the court concluded the reading of opinions.
 Upon the question of the constitutions ality of the taxation of incomes from state and municipal bonds the court was unan- imous in the negative.
 HOW THE COURT STOOD.
 Upon the question of taxation of rents the court stood as follows:
 Affirmlng-Justices Harlan and White.
 Against the law-Chief Justice Fuller, Justices Field, Gray, Brewer, Brown and Shiras.
 Upon the general question of constitu- tionality of the law the court is said to be divided as follows:
 For the law-Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and White.
 Against the law-Chief Justice Fuller, Justices Field, Gray and Shiras.
 THE PRESIDENT
 was in formed of the income tax decision shortly after it was rendered by the su- preme court, and at 1:30 he summoned Sec retary Carlisle to the executive mansion and the two discussed the matter for some time. Other members of the cabinet dropped in later, among them the attorney general. The decision was a djsappoint- ment, but the administration will at once issue Instructions to collectors of internal revenue to conform to the emasculated law. Secretary Carlisle followed his well defined custom not to discuss the matter for pubii- cation.
 ATTORNEY GENERAL oLNEY said the government would not ask for res hearing, but would accept the decision | as