People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-04-18
WANT TO TRY OVER!
PETITION FOR A REHEARING OF
THE INCOME TAX CASES.
supreme Court is Asked to Determine FL
naiiy Certain Points as to Which the
Former Decision is SIlent--Is a Tax on
Unconstitutional:

washington, April 15.-Attorney Cen
erai olney and ex-senator Edmunds
were In court in the interest of the gov
ernment and the appellants respective
" IN the matter of the petition pre-
sented to the court for a rehearine ~
'he income tax cases, but there was no
occasion Tor them to act in the matter
!. Is generally believed abou. the court
that Its decision on the petition will
not be announced until next Monday
1ne peuuon names the case of Char
les POLLOCK VS.. the armer's Loan and
rust company, and Lewis Reid vs.
we continental Trust company of New
MI Tork as those desiring a rehearIne
ne counsel whose names are attached
~ the petition are Joseph II. Choate
GIarence A. Seward, BENJAMIN Rristow
Milllam G. Guthrie, David Wilcoy ana
CHARLES H. Steele. anu
Inc petition sets forth the imperative
heeu OF a nnal determination by a fuIl
oench, OF the questions as to which ,ha
court was equally divided.
dissatisfaction with the decision NJ
tIv court seems to be general and n ie
SSeheVed that the administration will
no al IN its power to secure a rehearIns
VI Ihe case. The government, however
WIZ NOT consent to a reargument Of anv
particular question involved. but viii
ilsist IL rehearing is granted. that The
whoie case be argued. The onlv noint
decided by the court which meets The
approval Of the government Is that or
einptlng the tax on incomes from ststa
and municipal bonds. " : % &c
Inc rent exemption is being vipor-
ousiy attacked and the contention is
llaue that If the late decision stands
persons who paid the $3.50 900 OOO or
inore collected during the war ON in.
comes from rents have at least an
ssqutdDie claim against the government
Tor restitution. ''''eH'
Inc Petitlon for rehearing sets forth
lhat While the court has decided ,n,n
po.nts, as 10 rents and municipal bonds
yer no judgment has been Announced
ssutnorltatlVely establishing am point
tol interpreting the act on the follow
ing three points: w '0''O"-
flrst-Whether the void provisiors
mvalidate the whole act ~ -''0iiS
Second-Whether as 10 tbe ,roo,,,o
I'm personal property, as such. the
taxes. "'ins ulrect
. Third-Whether any part Of the tsx
mot considered as direct tax. is in.
'aIid Tor want of uniformity.
Inc petition for rehearing then re-
cites that In the early history of tbe
supreme court a rule of practice was
ADOPTED requiring, IL practicable CON
eututlonal questionas TO be heard nv
iuIi bench. This rule was announceS
py chief Justice Marshall az the nroc-
uce OF the court except in cases OF ab-
soiute necessity.
Inis rule was afterward followed Nv
Chief Justice Waite in the appeal nf q
New York case. At the time .Justi4a
WOODS was i'll and absent AMI took no
part IN the case, petition for a r.ar-
gument was presented on the grounds
laid down In Chief Justice Marshail.s
rule. The petition was granted and the
case was not reargued until tie bench
was full '''
The petition next urged that no case
could arise more lmperativelv reonirine
the application OF the rule than the IN.
come tax case, which affects the citi.
zens OF the country generally. The ne.
tition continues:
Inc appellants may well urge that
tnose serious constitutional questions
should be finally decided before their
trustee expend their funds in voluntary
payment Of the tax. In addition. n is
manifest, that until some decision is
reached, the courts will be overwbelr,-
ed with litigation upon these questions
ana the payment and collection of the
tax VIII be most seriously embarrassed
Every tax payer to any considerable
extent will pay the tax under pro-
test and sue to recover the same and n
necessary sue out his writ Of error TO
this court.
The court will Of necessity be bur-
oened with arguments of these oues-
tons without number until thew are
nnally settled. Still further. as the
matter now stands II has been decided
that tax upon the income of land Is
unconstitutional, while the court boS
made no decision as to the validity Of
the tax upon the income of personal
property. Serious questions have there
lore already arisen as to what IS in fact
TO be deemed the income Of real estate
and what is the income Of real and
what OF personal property IN cases
whe"e both are employed in the produc-
ton Of the same income"
In conclusion the petition asks that
the cases be restored to the docket
LOT reargument on the questions upon
which the court was evenly divided
In case this Is denied the petition asks
that the court below may be directed
TO determine, first, whether or not the
invalidity Of the statute in the resnacts
already specified renders the same al
together invalid; and. second, whether
or not thea ct Is constitutional in the
respects not decided by this court