The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-04-16
THE INCOME TAX.
Petition for Rehearing Presented TO
the Court

the Court.
WASHINGTON, April 15.-CopIes of the
petition asking rehearing of the in
come tax question, were handed around d
70 members OF the Supreme Court to-
DAY. The petition sets forth that whiIa
the court has decided two points Of the
law as to rents and municipal bonds.
yet no Judgment has been ennou need
sutnoritively establishing q principle
interpreting the act on the followinp
pointe:
1. Whether the void provisions inyali.
oate the whole act. Q. Whether IA to
the incomes from personal property as
sucn, the act Is unconstitutional as Law.
ing aireos taxes. g. Whether any part
OF the tax, II not considered as a direct
TAX, IL invalid for want of uniformity,
Inc petition then recites that hn tie
early history of the Supreme Courtia
rule OF practice was adop ted SredNIfinV
II practicable, constitutional aaastions
70 De heard By full bench, and, gives
In support Of their claims snyopinion
announced by Chief Justice NJ arshall,
and says the .rsleswas followed bv Chief
Justice Waiset5n the New York case.
g2The petition continues: "These an
peiiS1tsI rAay yell urge that these
seriouf questions should
be fnally decided before their trustee
expends their funds in voluntary paw
ment otthe tax p"'
every tax payer to any considerable
extent Will pay the tax under protest.
ana sue to recover the same back and IL
necessary cue out this writ OF error to
tne court The court will of necessity
% puroened with re- arguments OF these
questions without number until thew
are finally settled.
In conclusion the petition asks that
the cases DO restored 20 the docket for
re-argument on the questions upon
winch the court was evenly divided In
case this Is denied, the petition asks
that the court below may be dire cted to
determine Q) whether or not the in.
validity OF the statute in respects already
specified renders the same altogether
Invalid, and (9), whether or not the act
Is constitutional in the respects not de.
oided by this court.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Olney and ex- Soma.
tor Edmunds were In court in the In.
teress OF the government and the an
pellsnts' respectively, but there was ms
occasion for them to act. 1t is believed
that the decision on the petition will
not be announced until next Monday.
Dissatisfaction with the decision of
the SQUIRT seems 10 be general, and IL ia
believed that the ADMINISTRATION will do
alI In It's power TO secure q re- hearing of
the case, The government, however,
Will not consent to re argument of any
particular question involved but will
insist that If a re.hearing Is granted
the whole case be argued.
The only point decided by the court
which meets with the approval of the
administration Is that eXem ptinc from
the tax incomes from the State and
municipal bonds. The rent exemption
Is being vigorously attacked and and
the contention Is N ade that II she late
decision stands. persons who paid the
sioo'o 600 or more collected during
the war ON incomes from rents, have at
least an equitable claim against the
government for restitu ton.
A letter has been received here from
Justice jackson saying he would not be
able to come to Washington this term.
This makes 1t beyond question. that IL
rehearing is called 1t cannot OCCUR
before mex. October.