Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1895-04-14
The Income Tax.

Fuller began the reading OF the de
cision OF the Supreme Conrt in the
: income tax case by stating exceptions
, to the law rs made by the CONSUL for
appellant, us follows:
THAT the act imposed a direct
tax in respec: 10 real estate, rents, is.
sues and profits as well as of income
and profits OF personal property, and
not being apportioued is in violation
of section ,, article l. OF the constitu-
ton.
2.-That the law it not imposing Il
direct tax is nevertheless unconstitu.
tional in that its provisions are not
uniform throughout the United States
and do not operate with the same
force and effect upon the subject of
the tax wherever found. in that it pro.
vides exemptions in favor Of individ-
uals and co.partnershIps. while deny.
ing all exemptions TO corporations,
having n similar income derived from
like property values and provides for
other exemptions and inequalities and
is 4 violation OF section 5. article l Of
the constitution.
The Court next decided the tax was
unconstitutional as far rs it related TO
incomes from the state. county or
municipal bonds. 1t WINS the next
rule OF fact that the law was pro.
nounced unconstitutional in these two
particulars, but it did not invalidatc
the law rs a whole. 1t was
ed in this latter conclusion that the
Court was equally divided and there
fore rendered no opinion. The lower
court having ruled in favor OF the law.
being a divided court, the law would
stand except as to rent, state, county
and municipal bonds and on these
two points it was directed that the
judgment below be reversed.
3.-That the act provides no exemp.
ton OF tax upon incomes derived
from stock and bonds Of the States,
United States and counties and munl-
cipalities therein which stocks and
bonds are no proper subjects for tax
ing by the powers of Congress. The
income from these surcties in the
United Ststes amounts TO over S62O,-
100000 per annum Oh which the total
annual income tax would be s $780, (
600. He then took up the constitu-
tional points involved, dwelling upon
the fact that the constitution required
the apportionment of direct taxes and
uniformity in excuses and imports. re |
also dwelt upon the question of rep
resentation, and which was. he said.
foremost when the constitution was
adopted.
He then took up the question of Iii.
rect taxes, rents, and i'll so doing dis.
cussed at considerable length the
question of direct taxes ms considered
at the time of the training of the con-
stitution.
The trainers of the constitution. il
was said, were well verscd in the
government of colonies and European
countries, and were we'll versed in
literature of the period, including
works on political economy aud well
calculated to pass intelligently on
matters OF this kind.
He quoted various Supreme Court
decisions and sought to show while
the income tax question had been be-
fore the court, the question had only
been considered us applying to the
point at'issue III the particular case.
Coming down to the present tariff act
he said the law was passed III tbo time
OF profound peace, and it was to be
taken as evidence, that Congress
had sought i'll this matter to form a
precedent and establish Il departure
from established lines, and it there.
fore became important 10 inquire into
the circumstances with some attcn. |
ton to detail, and for the purpose of
comparison, he went back to the en-.
actment of the income tax during the
civil war. He quoted from adccIsion
in the Springer case, giving the his.
tory of the case and dcvoting much
attention 10 it, NJ Inc said the defense
had apparently relied upon this more
generally than upon any precedent.
1t is conceded he said, in all cases
from Hylton to Springer, that taxes
ON lands are direct taxcs, while in
some OF them it il determined that
taxes OF rents derived from lands are
indirect taxes. Was there n dis.
tinction between tax on land and on
incomes derived from land? What.
i'll other words. was land but the prof. |
it on itY Tho name OF tax is unimpor.
tnnt and the Court has been unableto
see any distircticr. rs closed by
saying the Court had reached tho
conclusion that The tax on rents was
involved.
Tho Chief Justice then took IN the
question of taxation of municipal and
State bonds. Tho decision was also
adverse 10 this part Of the law. ms re-.
pugnant to the constitution. On other
points the Court was divided, and
therefore no opinion could he given.
Juisicc Field read the dissenting
opinion. but his voice was so low il
could not DO heard. Justice Field
finished o before . o'clock. He
said: SIN Of the opinion that the
whole law OF 1891 IL null and void