New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09
PONDS EXTRACT CO., rs 5th-Ays, N. Y.

case. he said, the Court was asked 10 reverse the
Hyton case. and refused.
Referring to the Court itself. Justice White spoke
Of it as the only body Of its Kind on the globe 1t
was clothed with an august and awful powc--to
sit in Judgment 7)o)loo of people and make
the voice OF a few men absolutely supreme IL
was "A power that might be exercised TO strike
PARALYSIS and death Referring to our Constitu-
tion-thc written Observation-Disclosures White SAID
men could interpret human things so as TO make
that which H. written as changeable and uncertain
as tina, witch is uuwritt,n Tho effect OF the pres
cnt juIemcnt Of tho Court 10 destroy the great
doctrine lall down by the Court In the past
incidentally Justice White referred 10 his opinion
with regard to the income tax as expressed while
BE- was a member of the Senate. My opinions N
another BODY said h. and my hostility to the
cuacj 1ncri of that Jaw. are wei known but mere
in This chamber. member OF hts great court
| feel that ain bound by the established prece-
dents Of the Court as much ~ am bound 70 the
altar Of justice itself u N war between the
masses ard tie classes this Government is 10 20
down. 10 can only he by ups"ttng IN" safeguards
th1t have been thrown around every man ana his
property. ana glad - D." abb" 10 concur IN the
established prc,,lcufs Of this Court Expressed
through an Uuhroi'u ln" OF decisions from the
earliest times 20 the present.
Justice White stated .u conclusion that were the
question ~ aNire Incomes from municipal nondS
before the Court an Original question. b" wouII
alrcc tina. they could no' be- Included In an Income
tax. Lu, ia oouacctiou with thu question A. bar hc
Wa s,.H bounl boz thr prcc"lcnts. The 'egai
points more ln detail. ~ d~cr upon by Justice
White. follows
Is ~ THE FORM OF ACTION.
T. To-. sui, eauno, BE- maintained because it, real
object be- % 'nto.l the collection - taN
49, ,he text " .h. statute Of th" tnifcl states
me righ, 600 'ujn.n tnc payment OF United STATES
3 ny aiju'l.eauon, OF ihis Cour'. from The found
alton ~ ihe Government until thc present tlmo. It
ha- bon h,il thlt o United states court VIII not
rnlo.u tt" payment az TX due To- TIE nit.d
son upor whom such 90 tax j. levied. AMI who
would assert his constitutional immunity IRON ~.
for u. recovery
,"' , fs. hsrn .g'i, anI again cyponndcd
b, mis- co1r'. anI without exception adhered TO
iY.r claim Irr. Is thst ~. relief s,ush, is not
,n irj sg NJ. ,t,nea. br w. c'fpora
i"n I"' ui ~ W.. ,-,,s ;r no. si',k
t;;iI~ th .,1ek bSl.r f. entitled TO have {; en-
t.In.I (r,u wallrg fnis payment This contention
i. ~ m, ulsmrn, ,is'luic.y unsJund. since is
,.,'..' ,s. c,r,oraton en- 10 oy !ni.r1c,ion Ia,
,,.i.i, t. ,,,... Nv, directly
r.r .,r,.9,,,, thIt because the complainant s
q -t,tAaoicr mpieai.as ,ac corporation. equitable
'"'r1 r"'s ,,nr, L,s hrL IA, Where A state
s'a'g'e sNcs one ~ho ha, Eai4 ,eN a." rsni 20
rroy.nt M. usyrn,it ~ thc tax
s,,,,s ~, .s'1,r.,Uv m Wow II the mandatory
,r,rs - IA. ,r - congress forll!liug M njunc-
10" Tho .s,tl,r th,. th. claim here advanced rs
,,o. rl,r, .o nav. fro CORPORATION .nloinel from
-. - 80. Inn .iuriv :, right 2, have al ir-
gnc'9 . s' ,o y2'hIy 81 i"S cs p T@
ii 9l' 'l,,''.'..'
. II fh~ purpo.. of thia bin Is To prevent voluu-
tary payment tncn tho case gives ~" 20 no n"ccs-
sl,y for determining tac gons,i,hi.Gn'HW %, t9r
Law Inc sfrIrh the law XIV -" right - sue Tor
~ recovery % the tnN pail u sucn RICH, VIII b"
los hE voluntary payment ga " Pil ". , wv,
Gog'r'ion mo-, ~, ' . AMI ' al.cs 10 prc
vent the corporn'"n rom iH!"s Wy. M.Hi'
',-'' ~" s,,,,i,o.s ConstitilfI.nn.ity
go IN such Il c1@e t.c proper r'm'iv Is WI %;
mln' mus 80 ..,'p 80 ,r,I,s, 80 as - rrc,rya
The rishi ~ snIs 10 recover. This remedy coul: b"
r.sot'cl %. and. fak" iL wouli nr 9u'WtI WIN
out Icr' ling thc question oi oonstlu'Ioi'iy h. .
H. Tnis hcng true. the theory mere above ihat IL
* necessary pronounce upon ire 'p"~l 'utiJuiI tN
Of the laN I'm orl'r 20 project th" r!eh,S ~ IN"
siockholcr seems to me- To- %" un.onnl Thf pre.-
ont condition of this Court som. ?" mo 10 d'uo@
siratc The wisdom of the rule hitherto universally
adhered -. ami. IN my judgment the error ~ de
allow the complainiuis I" PfAcn''Iy 'hJo'h inc
payment Of The tan. -, 81, .,.
~. supporiine the conclusion reached 10y the Court
| are DClg, versus W1olscy ~ INV 81, ana lih"''
versus oakland l"i United states go ~
-nSt1ins me r.itian in support Of which IT is cltcI
,,x and therefore. clearly outside of the INl'
! aunlcl In the cas-, ~ United States taxes. Thf
stconi case was p controversy between stock
holder and corporation In regard To me admlnis-
ration Of corporate affairs. II involved no Pues-
ton of taxation whatever. and, therefore the de
ceon an not deal all with the act OF Congress
| ar Tho enforcement Of the continuous line OF lie
cisons Of this Court. holding that II Will not re-
| train rho t,1yment II allow relief In the
nre"isn '' NH the party had paid ahd is seeking
| rrllrrss hv eulnc for recovery
~ - w - me- b,t tho Court ought not To
49, I,e nrcyi6is decisions In "A matter OF this
| Nina "snscloilv when the result Of doing Is To
",r,,o Jryr an oct Of Congress and deny the cx-
| l., Al -