The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-16
ANOTHER INCOME TAX CASE.
Judge ShVYalter GTautS q Chicago Firm
a Restraining Order.
TIE BILL ATTACKS THE ENTIRE ACT.
And the Law viii be Tested Before the s"-
premc Courl--The Grounds for the on-
eon,t. .tutionaiitv Of the Act Given.
Incct e tho Injunction.

AHf'k - AH'
CHICAGO. April l5.-Judse showslter
m INC United states Court this morning
enjoinod siogeL Cooper 60. from max
ing any rciurr 90 Che internal revenue
collector under the provisions OF tho in
coinc-tax law The restraining order was
granted on bin filed by Gcrson siegeL
ono OF me New York stockholders, In tho
defendant corporation. The bill attacks
the law. and under the order granted
this morning the Government Will be
compelled 10 take part in the proceedings
TO defend the operation of the new law
When the attorney for Mr.. Siegel pre-
scntod the bill TO Judge showalter the
latter asked Tor an explanation OF the
application
OF the inc0mo-tax 20 The collector Of in
iornal revenue" said the attorney MY
client protests against his firm making
any payment of the tax or any report
lie maintains that the law In IT'S entirety
is unconstitutional. All we ask is for an
order restraining the firm OF Siegel Coop
or a. co. from making its return to-day.
II not granted the firm viii Dc liable 10
make the return"
Judge showaittr took the application.
and after reading f. made the restrain
ing order. a bond OF 5000 will be nled
to-day. by the issuance of the order OF
the court the firm escapes The payment
OF the nne, should the Supreme Court TO
which the question will be- carried, de-
eide against the complainant. Mr.. Sicgol'
ia his bill. raises all the questions that
are involved in the inc0mc-taN dispute
including those decided by the Supreme
Court last week.
THK POINTS CONTESDTD.
His grounds for the unconsututionality
of the act are set forth I'm the following
order.
The provisions of the income tax are
unconstitutional nun. and II col
lectiblo upon the Defendants in
come or profits 10 is q direct tax. In
respect 90 real estate, and Goa respect TO It's
personal property. By lcyying import upon
the profts-incomc thereof which direct
taxes are not boo and by said act appOr-
toned among the several States, as re-
quircd by the Constitution of the United
States. lf not direct tax, the tax Is
not uniform, as required 10y the Consti-
tuition. The prOnts Of many corpora
tlons amount 10 less than 5000 and the
said tax is imposed on such corporations
although individuals carrying on and
transactng similar businesses, under like
conditions. and having like property val
ucs and quantities, and incomes are
exempted by the act from the power of
said tax.
Tho tax is not uniform. because your
@. ttor has an annual income. and. as he
.s Informed numerous holders of stock
ln corporations likewise. have annual In
comes of less than 5000. and the effect
of such payment will be to lessen and di-
minish the dividends of such stockhold-
srs and compel them TO bear and pay
the tax. although other parties Of the
same class. similarly situated whose In
comes are less than the $1,000 are exempt
cd 10 is not uniform, IN that IL is inn
posed upon I per cent. of the population
of tho United States and the other 80
per cent. are exempted. although they
hold among themselves the greater part
of all property, real and personal, ia the
United states. II is not uniform i'm that
a tax of per cent. is imposed upon all
incomes acquired by gift or inheritance,
while uo similar tax is imposed upon real
estate acquired under similar conditions.
II is not "a uniform TAX. I'm that IL eXempts
from its operations an mutual insurance
companies. whose aggregate wealth is
81 gDl.OO0 0000. and imposes the tax upon
an other insurance companies. 10 eX-
empts building and loan associations,
whose aggregate holdings are S62S, ,O1o 900.
Vet such are certainly private in their
nature SaVlnes-hanks, operated upon
the mutual plan, arc exempted from the
operations of the tax. whose aggregate
deposits are S.1fso01090. while all other
savings banks are taxed. The tax is
not uniform. because IN varies according
as the property belongs TO am individual
or TO more than one individual. The tax
IS unconstitutional iu that % imposes
tax upon property rights vested prior go
the passage OF the said act and 10 de-
privcs persons OF their property without
due process of law.
TO TEsT THE TNTIRE ACT.
Mr. Sicgel's attorney said that it was
intended 10 test the entire act before The
supreme Court.
"rhat part of the act which remains
in force" said he "is due 60 divided
court and is the opinion of the court be-
low. HAD the opinion of the court below
been against the consututionality of thu
entire aci. the decision OF the supreme
Court would have caused the law 10
fail By bringing the matter up again,
We may get an opinion from the suIrome
court"
As General Black. the Unitcd States
dlstritc attorney. is out of the city and
viii not rctYrn FOR some days, no action
viii be- uttn in calling up the issue for
hearing until next Monday.
ANoiHrH fNcoNf-rAx LIST oAsF
BALTIMORE, April l5.-Stockholdcrs OF
the Georgia Greek Coal ana Iron Com
lany nled suit to-day 100 the United
states Circuit Court. aakins for an iu-
junction restraining Collector of Internal
Revenue NauoNer from enforcing several
provisions Of The inc)me-taN law The
Itfiiioncrs assert that they are owners
of land in Allegheny ana Garrett coun-
tes. Maryland. ana that "a uouce mas
been sent them TO maNo returns OF all
incomes over ND0. The point made by
j. A. Alexander attorney for the peti-
toners. is ,hut according 20 the recent
decision of the supreme Court taS on
the profits realized frOm real estate Is
constitutional and that mines being
real estate comes under This decision.
and are therefore caernut from the two
per cent. tax. The result OF the litiga-
ticn viii be- awaited with interest, and
the case. whatever the decision. VIII
rrob4blV 70 10 The s.furafne Court of fbo