The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1895-04-13

feet the legality of the remaining portion.
of the law. In a statement sent out by tn,
United Press on March 10 last 1t was as
serted on the authority OF the attorne,
general that the case had been SO pre-
sented to the cour that a portion of thu
law might be declared unconstitutional
while the rest of 1t could stand.
Text of the Decision.
Washington, April S.-The announce
ment of the decision of the supreme
court of the United States in the income
tax cases today was made in the pres
ence of a crowded court room, the spec
tators' lobby icing thronged to its ut
most capacity. Among those within the
rail today were Attorney General Oh
ney, Senator David B. Hill of New
York, who SO persistenltly fought the in
sertion Of the tax provision in the tar
If law; ex-Secrstary Of the Treasury
Boutelle: r.. B. Fowler, comptroller OF
the treasury; Senators Mitchell and
Hunton: ex-Attorney General Garland,
Hon. George C. Gorham, and a great
number of attorneys more or less inter-
ested in the action of the court
The members of the court, except AS
sociate Justice Jackson, entered the
chamber promptly at noon and were
received with the ceremonial attention
that marks their every entrance. A
few cases of minor Importance We're dis
posed of, and the chief justice said,
amid almost painful stiffness: 81 an,
charged with the duty of announcing
the opinion and Judgment of the court
In the case of Charles Pollock VS. the
Farmers Loan and Trust
ct al"
The conclusions of the court were
stated to be as follows:
l. That by the constitution federal
taxation is divided into two great
classes-direct taxes and duties, i'm
posts n excuses.
2. That THE imposition of direct taxes
is governed by the rule of apportion-
ment among the several states, accord
Ing to numbers, and the imposition of
duties. imposts and excuses by the rule
of uniformity throughout the United
States.
B. That the principle that taxation
ana representation go together was in
tended to be and was prescribed in the
constitution by the establishment of the
rule OF apportionment among the sew
erai STATES so that such superintendent
should be according to numbers in each
state.
4. That the states surrendered their
power TO levy imposts and to regulate
coHmerceaaso the general government
ana gave 1t the concurrent power to
levy direct taxes in reliance on the pro-
lection afforded by the rules prescribed.
ana that the compromises Of the consti-
tution cannot be disturbed by legislative
action.
., That these conclusions result from
the text of the constitution, and are
supported by the historical evidence
furnished by the circumstances snr-
rounding the framing and adoption Of
mat and the views Of those
who framed and adopted it.
b. mat the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time of the adoption of
The constitution was that direct taxes
would not be levied by the general gov
srnment except under the pressure of
extraordinary ~exigency, and such has
been the practice down to August IL
1884. If the power to do so is to be ex-
srcised as an ordinary and usual means
Of supply. that furnishes an additional
reason for circumspection in disposing
Of the present case.
Z. That taxes on real estate belong to
the class of direct taxes, and that taxes
on the rent or income of real estate
which is the incident OF it's ownership.
belong to the same class.
8. That by no previous decision OF this
court has this question been adjudica-
ted to the contrary Of the conclusions
now announced. That so much of the
act of August is, 1894, as attempts to
impose a tax upon the rent or Income
Of real estate without apportionment is
Invalid. The court Is further of opin-
ion thai the act of August Is, 1894, is an
valid so far as 1t attempts to levy a
tax upon the income derived from mu-
nicipal bonds. AS a municipal
tion is the representative of the state
and one of the instrumentalities of the
state government, the property and
revenues of municipal corporations are
not the subjects of federal taxation, nor
IS theincome derived from state, county
and municipal securities, since taxation
on the interest 'therefrom operates on
the owe to borrow before 1t is exer-
cised and has a sensible influence on the
contract and therefore such a tax is a
~ Po"Si VI tJiG states anu VlelT
instrumentalities to borrow money. and
consequently repugnant to the consti-
tuition. Upon each of the other uues-
tons argued at the bar, towit:
1. Whether the void proposition as to
rents income from real estate in
validates the whole act?
z. Whether as to the income of the
personal property as such. the act Is
unconstitutional as having direct
taxes?
3. Whether any part of the tax, if not
considered as a tax, is invalid for want
OF uniformity on either of the grounds
suggested-the justices who heard the
arguments are equally divided and
therefore, no opinion is expressed.
! The result Is tina: the decree of the
circuit cour is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to enter a
decree In favor of complainant in re-
spect only of the voluntary payment Of
the tax on the rents and income from
the municipal bonds owned or SO held
by 1t.
The chief Justice said that the juris-
diction of courts of equity to v
diversion of funds by breach of trust or
illegal payment of the funds had been
fully affirmed by the court. The ques-
ton v not raised in the court below
u had not been explicitly waived on
the argument OF tine ease, and the court
felt Justified in proceeding to a decision
OF the case on its merits. He said that
the power to decide . law unconstitu-
tio1sl was used with reluctance, but
the responsibility could not be evaded
when the necessity arose. The chief
Justice proceeded to a consideration Of