The Irish standard., 1895-05-25

yStsMSuksElSAQl@s HllAl ~ neeM Oh StlSss
content. All III. iice Harlan III his
somewhat Iimpa ssioned opiniion said, III
VIII create aa new and nnnecessary COM
test..,'''s here IL toda ii this country
AID emhi tternneut bet ween the elasses
which is. daily increasing and such .de,
cisions as the one handed down by the
supreme court on Monday will help ito
l widen tlie breach. If5a the A,aeric
|pepnle were certain III at an income TAX
was contrary to the constitution of the
United States the feeling now existing
over the decision would be absent. But
they are not certain. g Indeed the de-
cision has sh aiken their faith In the Wis
dom and patriotism Eo the supreme
cour An income tax has been held
const tutional in this country and 10 tar
as censtit utional law is concerned it
matters not whether the tax is imposed
in time of war or in time Of peace. In
deed if the press reports Of the decision
are correct it would seem that the court
has departed very far from the principle
bf stare decists' In arriving at its con-
clusion. Writers on our constitution
have for one hundred years considered
(, a tax on land and a capitalization tax the
only kiHds, of@directs taxes known AT
ticle 1,sseetion ~ 81 Of the Consti tution
which says: Representative and di-
rect taxes shall be apportioned among
the several states which may be includ-
ed within this union according to their
respective numbers Z has never been re
garled as applying to taxes on personal
property. The present decision holds
that a tax. levied. on personal property
in the. possession of a person is a direct.
tax and must be apportioned in Accord
anee with the foregoing section of the
Constitution. The step taken by y: the
supreme court Is a very serious one, for
it is very hard to overturn a decision Of
the court once made. Courts are con-
sentative and especially is this true Of
the supreme court. It is inclined TO go
a long way in order to stand by its de-
cisions. The present decision is, how
ever, not very firmly fixed, having been
arrived at by an almost equally divided
court n. T. :s
AS the matter stands now a law passed
by a large majority of congress and al s
lowed to become q law by a president
elected, by AN overwhelming vote of the
American people and supported by four
justices of the supreme court Of the
United States, three of whom have been
appointed to that tribunal within six
years, thus coming fresh, from the peo-
pie, has been overturned by five Justices
Of the court:a1l of whom have been away
from the people for ever ten years, and
one Of whom has been there for thirty
two Years n and an is almost eighty years of
age..s N. Vi. j NJ. g; ... .?.
re gwSitl NOT do to say that, the written
law 81 the land which congress has no
powered change has made this decision
i1npera tfive. The ssnp ren,e court has said
before,when composed Of equally as dis
tingnished minds as now comprise that
body, that an income law was not re-
pugnant to the Constitution, and four OF
the nine justices; now hold the law con-,
stitutional, while. but g. month ago one
Of the five now against the, law was for
1t. The decision therefore stands on a
very unsound foundation, and would not
we believe long Withstand the attack of
public opinion. In England such a thing
as has just happened in this country
would be considered the grossest kind
of tyranny. There the laws passed by
Parliament are supreme. They have no
written constitution. Anything passed
by Parliament. is constitutional and it
remains for the courts only to construet
the laws Their courts cannot .overt,1rn
the laws passed by the supreme 1egisla-5
tive power. \. II ss, 5,.s3..s .@ss<
j. In this country our Judicial depart
ment can nullify the work Of the peoples
This, it will sbe seen at.
once is. a very great power and unless
exercised with the greatest care and
mo deration is likely to lead to trouble.
Our supreme court has taken. upon it.
self a great responsibility and itremains
to be seen how public opinion will ac-.
capt the decisfon.s@It is pleasing to state
that the court did not decide on party
lines. Indeed the income tax principle
wassnot advocated by either part before
the people. President cleveland and
Carlisle advocated its adoption
as a welcome substitute for the obnox-