Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-05-23

MAS..ISGTON, May 20.--lmmedlatelE on
the convening Of the Supreme Court, to.
day. Chief Justice Fuller began TO read
the income tax opinion.
The Income Tax law was declared un-
constitutional.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT.
The conclusions of the court were as
follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already
announced, that taxes on real estate being
undisputably direct taxes, taxes m the
rents or income of real estate are equally
direct taxes,
Second. We are OF the opinion that taxes
oil personal property or on the announce
nlent of personal property are likewise
direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections y to
81, inclusive of the act of 1894. so far as it
falls on the income OF real estate and on
personal property, being direct tax
within the mean Of the Constitution are
therefore unconstitutional and void,
because not apportioned according to rep
resen,ation, all these sections constituting
one entire 81 heme OF taxation are neces-
sarily invalid.
The decree hereinbefore entered in this
court will be vacated. The DEGREES below
will be reversed, and the cases remanded,
with instructions to grant the relief
prayed.
KNOCKS OUT THE INCOME TAN
Sections 81 to 81 of the Tariff act Of 1894
referred to in the conclusions of the court
in the opinions. are all the sections of the
act relating to the income tax so that the
entire Income Tax law is declared void
specifically.
BY A VOTE OF TO 1.
The vote on the income tax resulted
| five against the constitutionaity of the
In M faIf In ha n
Those against the law were Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Field, Gray, Brewer
and Shiras; for the law Justices Harlan,
White, Brown and Jackson.
SUMMARY OF THE CoURr's OPINION.
Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the
| opinion of the court. The opinion in part
is as follows:
Whenever this court is required to pass
upon the validity of an act OF Congress, as
tested by the fundamental law enacted by
| the people, the duty imposed demands in
its discharge the utmost deliberation and
| care and invokes the deepest sense of re-
| sponsibility. And this is especially so when
| the question involved the exercise of n
great governmental power and brings into
consideration, as vitality affected by the de-
cision that complex system of government
SO sagaciously framed to secure and per-
petuate ian indestructible Union, COM
posed of indestructible States"
We have, therefore, with an anxious
desire to omit nothing which might in any
degree tend to elucidate the questions sub
mitted, and aided by further able argu.
ments embodying the fruits of elaborate
research, carefully re-eXamined these cases
with the result that, while our former con-
clusions remain unchanged, their scope
must be enlarged by the acceptance of
their logical consequences.
The very nature of the Constitution, as
observed by Chief Justice Marshall in one
of his greatest judgments, requires that
only its great outlines should be marked,
its important objects designated, and the
minor ingredients which compose these
objects be deduced from the nature of the
objects themselves" In considering this
question then, we must never forget that
it is Constitution that We are exnonnding.
As heretofore stated, the Constitution
divided Federal taxation into two great
classes, the class of direct taxes and the class
of duties. imposts and excises, and pre-
scribed two rules which qualified the
grant of power AS to each class. The power
to lay direct taxes, apportioned among the
several States in proportion to their repre-
sentation in the popular branch of Con-
gress, a representation based on pOpula'
ton ascertalned by the census, was plenary
and absolute; but to lay direct taxes with
out apportionment were forbidden. The
|
was subject to the qualification that the
imposition must he uniform throughout
the United States.
Our previous decision was confined to
the consideration of the validity of the tax
on the income from real estate and on the
income from municipal bonds. The queS'
ton thus limited was whether such taxa
tion was direct or not, in the meaning OF
the Constitution; aud the Court went nc
farther, as 10 the tax on the incomes from
real estate than to hold that it fell within
the same class as the source whence the
income was derived; that is, that tas
upon the realty aud tax upon the re
ceipts theretrOm were alike direct while
; as to the income from municipal bonds
that could not be taxed because of want d
power to tax the source. and no reference
was made to the nature OF the tax as being
direct or indirect.
We are now permitted to broaden thl
field of inquiry and determine to which O
the two great classes q tax upon person!
, entire income, whether derived from rent
or products, or otherwise of real estate o.
products. or otherwise of real estate o
! from bonds, stocks, or other forms O
personal property belongs, and we art
unable to conclude that the enforced sub
traction from the yield of all the owner
real or personal property in the name
prescribed, is 50 different from tax upol
but an Indirect tax. i'll the meaning OF th
{ Constitution.
The words of the Constitution are to bt
taken IN their obvious sense and to nav
reasonable construction. In Gibbons VS.
Ogden, Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall, witt
5 his usual felicity, SAID:
3 AS men, whose intentions require III
cunccament, generally employ the word
which most directly and apparently ex
press the ideas they intend to convey, til
enlightened patriots who framed our Con
1 stitution and the people who adopted
i. must be understood TO have employ
, words in their natural sense, and to hay
!. intended what they have said"
We know of no reason for holding Other
I wise than that the words direct taxes" ol
: the one hand, and duties, imposts and eS
:. cises" ON the other, were used in the Coust
n tuition in their natural ana obvious mean
i ing; nor in arriving ut what those terms EN-
/. brace, do we perceive any grounds for Ell
. larging them beyond or narrowing then
within their natural and obvious impoI
at the time the Constitution was frame
, and ratified.
!, The court, as it approached its conclu
+ sion, made the following general arGu
4 ment:
n Ii it were the fact that there had bee
r. no Income Tax law, such as this, at tn
time the Constitution was framed an
adopted, it would not be of controllin
importance. A direct tax cannot be take
II out of the constitutional rule because til
r particular tax did not exist at the time til
3 rule sas prescribed. As Chief Justic
4 Marshall said in tine Dartmouth Colleg
case:
4 ut is not enough to say that this paI
ticular case was not in the mind OF tn
: convention, when the article was framed
nor of the American people, when it wa
adopted. II Is necessary TO go further