The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-09

Justice White then reviews each OF the
Similar ta uec easess ana tn add Scpreme Court IN
These repeated decisions. 1t seems to
me. remove the case from the domain OF
controversy. The decree here rendered does
not override these cases directly, but. in
my opinion. 1t does so by indirection. The
that a general income tax IS constitutions.
without a-pportionment, as being an indi-
rect tax. but that the inclusion therein OF
it direct.
CONTRADICTORY.
THE opinion of the court to-day in hold
ing that the inclusion of rentals of land in
the income tax renders the tax direct quod
hoe. not only reverses the decisions / have
cited. but involves. it seems TO me. a con-
tradiction in terms. If the income, as such.
levied on an individual according to his in
come is not a direct tax, how can it be
said that the inclusion therein Of rentals de-
rived from real estate makes 1t a direct tax
pro tanto. This inclusion assuredly reaches
his real estate only in an Indirect way. The
effect of the decision appears 40 be &c hcid
that which is indirect is direct.
1.-The contention that the legality OF the
inclusion of revenues from real estate In an
income tax was rot involved In the decl-
sions heretofore rendered upon the matter in
hand seemed to me untenaDle. Inc rest OF
the thing adjudged seems 10 me conclusive
here. Could the insurance company IN the
case just mentioned have been heard. after
the rendition of the decree. to assert that
it was not bound to include its revenues
from real estate in its return made under
the law then in force? If 1T had undertaken
to do so, on the ground that so far rs those
revenues were concerned. the income tax
was direct and must, therefore,, be appcr-
toned among the States according TO PIP
elusive against it-would not this court have
said, in effect: The issue previously pre-
sented was the liability OF your entire IN
rated fully your objection to the inclusion
of rentals from real estate in the estima-
ton of your income. Our decree was rem
dered in response to a request from the
court below for our opinion upon the valid
iy of the income TAX as a whole ara rem
decision that to include the rent OF realty
in an income tax involves the levying OF a
tax on the realty such as must + be app or
opinion. untenable. The question is not, &C
cording to my view, whether such Inclu-
sion affects real estate, but whether the
tax thus levied is a direct tax thereon,
within the meaning of the Consultations
According to the very words or the
sense a tax on land as such. 1t places no
burden on real estate, if it is not rented, or
occupies his land himself. 1t puts no di-
rect burden under any circumstances for
1t allows the deduction from the income
derived from land and all other sources OF
"a, 900 as well as all expenses incurred in
the transaction of business. The fallacy
Sumption that the constitution forbids an
Indirect taxation OF land by the federal
government without superintendent among
the States. 1t is only direct burdens that
must be SO apportioned. and the tax on
incomes imposed by the statute now under
consideration is, in its essence and by the
very terms of the law, indirect in every
regard. In my judgment the position here
assumed is full of LANCER to our institu-
tions. The august power lodged in this
court of passing on the oonstitutionality OF
acts of Congress has always been discreet
ly and carefully exercised. / believe this
is the first case in our history where au-
thority which has been conceded TO Con-
gress by nearly one hundred years of
acquiescence in all departments of the
government and has been sanctioned, by re-
peated applications of this court, has been
judicially denied"