The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1895-05-23
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Is WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT SAYS AILS THE
INCOME TAX
LAW.
Decision and Dissenting Opin'
ions in Brief.

The income tax is declared uncon
stitutional In toto.
The conclusion of the court were a
follows:
l. We adhere to the opinion al
ready announced that the taxes or
real estate being indisgutably diree
taxes, taxes ON the rents ON income o.
real estate are equally direct taxes.
I 2. We are of the opinion that take:
ON personal property or on the income
OF personal property are likewise di
rect taxes.
g. The tax imposed by sections 81
to 5 inclusive, of the act Of 1894, SO
far as it falls on the income of real es-
tate and on personal property being q
direct tax within the meaning of the
constitution and therefore nnconsti-
tutionai and void, because not ap-
portioned according to. representation,
all those sections constituting one en-.
tire scheme of taxation are necessarily
invalid
The DEGREES hereinbefore entered in
this court will be vacated. The de-
crees will be reversed and the case re-
manded with instructions to grant the
relief prayed
Sections 81 to 81 of the tariff act of
1884 referred to in the conclusions of
the court IN the opinions are all the
sections of the act relating to the in
come tax 80. that the entire income
tax is declared void specifically.
THE DISSENT. =
Justice White stated his views
briefly. From first to last be said
the opinion Of the majority was but
series of contradictory propositions
one eating up and destroying the
the Others. In stating the grounds
upon which be dissentcd from the
majority, Justice White laid great
stress on the Hylton case and re- en-
unciated the legal points he had
made in his first dissenting opinion.
In conclusion, Justice Whites
opinion said; 1.-The injustice of the
conclusion points to the error of
adopting it. 1t takes invested wealth
and reads it into the constitution as
a favored and protected class of
property, whilst it leaves the occu-
patton of the minister, tho doctor,
the professor, the lawyer, the in
ventcr; the; e;xuthorr, the merchant and
all the various forms of human ac-
tivity upon which the prosperity Of
people must depend, subject to
taxation without apportiopmeut. The
absolute inequality and injustice of
taxing by reference to population
and without regard to the amount of
wealth taxed are SO manifest that to
admit the power to tax and to limit
it to this mode substantially denies
the power itself, f,Isince it imposes a
restriction which renders its exercise
practically impossible"
A few cotemporaneous remarks
were made by Justice White, after
the reading of his written opinion.
He spoke of the decision as a blow
struck at the American people and
said the power of levyipg an income
tax now left could only be exercised
with such injustice that no legisla-
tive body would dare attempt to ex-
ercise il for such an attempt wonld
bring forward a bloody revolution.
Justice Brown, in his dissent, said:
If we question, what is and what is
not q direct tax was now for the
first time presented, be should enter
tain agrave doubt whether in view
of the definitions of a direct tax
given by the courts and writers up.
on political economy during the
present contention it ought not to
be held to apply only to an iucome
tax, but to every tax, the burden of
which is borne both Immediately
and ultimately by the person pay
ing it. He regards it as very clear
that the clause requiring direct tax
alton to be apportioned to the pop
ulation has no application to taxes
which are not capable of apportion.
ment according to population. 1t
could not be supposed that the con-
yeptiou could have contemplated a
practical inhibition upon the power
of congress to tax. in ssome way all
taxable property within the juris-
diction of the federal government, for!
the purpose of national revenue"
-. TE n GkokD CornDoSov,