Rocky Ford enterprise., 1895-05-23
No INCOME TAX NOW.
DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
Five of tho Supreme Court Justices De-
eide That the Law Is Unconstitutional
Justice jackson for 1t, but Another
Justice Changed His Mind.

eide That the Law Is Unconstitutional
Justice jackson for 1t, but Another
Justice Changed His Mind.
Washington, May 20.-The Supreme
Court to-day declared the income tax
law unconstitutional.
There was the usual throng Of peo-
pie around the United States Supreme
Court room, in anticipation Of a final
decision in the income tax cases, the
chamber being crowded for quite a
time before the court convened at noon.
Those present included many attorneys
and full representation of the press,
as well as fair sprinkling Of members
Of Congress.
The justices were at the Capitol early
and the consultation began promptly
at 10 o'clock, continuing until few
moments before IL, all the members of
the court being present, including JUS
tice Jackson, who appeared at the court
greatly to the surprise of everyone save
the justices.
The vote on the income tax resulted
as follows: Five against the consitu-
tionality of the law to four for. Those
against the law We're Chief Justice Full
Ter, Justices Gray, Field, Brewer and
Shiras; for the law, Justices Harlan,
White, Brown and Jackson.
The decision and the opinion were
read by Chief Justice Fuller. The de-
cision Is as follows:
First-We adhere to the opinion al
ready announced, that taxes on real es-
tate being indisputably direct taxes,
taxes on the rents on income of real
estate, are equally direct taxes.
<Nf tI,1 frtN khnf
taxes on personal property, or on the
income Of personal property, are like
wise direct taxes.
Third-The tax imposed by sections
27 to 81 inclusive, of the act Of 1894, SO
far as 1t falls on the income Of real es-
tate and on personal property being a
direct tax within the meaning Of the
constitution and therefore unconsdtu-
tional and void, because not appor-
toned according to representation, all
those sections constituting one entire
scheme of taxation, are necessarily in
valid.
The DEGREES 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.
Sections % 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 In
come tax, so that the entire income tax
is declared void specifically.
In the course Of the decision read,
Justice Fuller said:
"As heretofore stated, the constitution
divides federal taxation into two great
classes; the class of direct taxes and the
class of duties, imposts and excises,
mi txu1 yn1, id
the grant of power as to each class The
power to lay direct taxes, apportioned
among the several states in proportion
to their representation in the popular
branch OF Congress representation
based on population as ascertained by
census, was plenary and absolute; but
to lay direct taxes without apportion-
ment was forbidden. The power to lay
duties, imposts and excuses was subject
to the qualification that the imposition
must be uniform throughout the United
States.
sour 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. We
are now permitted to broaden the field
of inquiry and determine to which of
the two great classes n tax upon a per-
sons entire income, whether derived
from rents or products. or otherwise of
real estate, or from bonds, stocks or 9TH
er forms of personal property, belongs;
and we are unable to conclude that the
enforced subtraction from the yield of
all the owners real or personal property
In the manner prescribed is so different
from a tax upon the property itself that
1t is not direct, but an indirect tax in
the meaning of the constitution.
'"The words of the constitution are to
be taken in their obvious sense and to
have a reasonable construction.
"We know of no reason for holding
otherwise than that the words direct
taxes on the one hand and duties, i'm
post and excises' on the other were
used in the constitution in their natural
and obvious senses, nor in arriving at
what those terms embrace do we per-
ceive any ground for enlarging them
natural and obvious import at the time
the constitution was framed and rati-
fed"
The chief Justice next discussed the
reasons for the constitutional provisions
regarding direct taxation. The states
had plenary powers of taxation, he said,
but gave up the great sources of revenue
derived from commerce and retained the
power Of levying taxes and duties cover
ing everything Olner tnan excuses, Dut
in respect to them the range of taxation
was narrowed by the power granted to
the federal government over interstate
commerce. While they granted the
power of apportioning direct taxation,
they secured to the states the opportun-
ity to pay the amount apportioned, and
to recoup from their own citizens in the
most feasible way.
The constitution ordained affirmative
ly that representation and direct taxes
should be apportioned among the sew
eral states according to numbers, and
negatively that no direct tax should be
paid otherwise. The founders antici-
pated that the expense of the federal
government would chiefly be met by in
direct taxation. They knew that the
power to tax involved the power to
destroy.
The opinion continued: at is said that
a tax on the whole income of property
is not a direct tax, but a duty. We do
not think SO. Direct taxation was not
restricted in one breath, and restriction
blown to the winds in another"
ARCHBISHOP KENDRICk SUED.
Action to DiveSt Him of Title to Millions