The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1895-04-12
INCOME TAX CASES.
SUPREME COURT MAKES NO DECi5-
ION ON MAIN QUESTION.

There Being Eour Who Believe tho Tax,
Unconstitutional and -Four Who Hold
Opposite yiews-The Law as N Whole
Therefore Stands, but Incomes from
Rents and State, County and Municipal
Bonds Ave Exempted.
WASHINGTON, April 9.-After almost a
month of elaboration the United States
supreme court rendered its decision yes
terday in the income tax cases. deciding
by a divided court the law to be valid, ex-
sept regarding the incomes derived from
rents and from certain bonds, on
which point the decision was that the tax
was unconstitutional. The interest which
had characterized the case from the be-
ginning was made manifest by an un =
usual attendance of people in the court
room. The space is limited at best. but
every available seat inside and outside
the bar was occupied, and many were
not accommodate all who applied for adj
mission.
Absence of jackson Made q Tie.
There was only one member of the
bench absent-Justice jackson, who has
not been able to attend upon the court
since last fall, and who has not partici-
pated In the consideration Of the case in
any way. 1t is to his absence that the
even division of the court on the majority
of the propositions involved in the case Is
due. If he had been present such a re-
suit would have been impossible, and the
opinion would have included decision of
all the points involved instead of only the
two. Chief Justice Fuller, after making
a few routine announcements, began at
i2:05 to read the courts decree in the case
Of Charles Pollock versus the Farmers
Loan and Trust company, and others.
This was the first in order of the cases
against the trust companies and the con-
illusions reached in it apply also to the
case of Hyde versus The Continental
Trust company as the questions at issue
ore the same in both cases.
Objections of the Appellants.
The delivery of the opinion consumed
an hours time, and all present gave the
closest attention. Chief Justice Fuller
began with brief reference to the ques.
ton of jurisdiction in the case. This
point had he said, been frequently re-
ferred to, but he dismissed it by saying
that as the question had not been raised
in the court below, and had been waived
in the argument of the case in the SUI
preme court, there appeared no objection
to considering the case purely on its mer-
its. Proceeding to this end he gave his
attention. to the objections to the law as
made by the appellant, quoting the prin-
cipal ones as follows:
/. That the act imposes direct tax in
respect of the real estate, rents, issues
and profits, as we'll as of the income and
profits of personal property, and not be-
ing apportioned is in violation of section
Of article of the constitution.
2. That the law, If not imposing direct
tax, is nevertheless unconstitutional ia
that its provisions are not uniform
throughout the United States, and do not
operate with the same force and effect
upon the subject Of the tax, wherever
found, or in that il provides exemptions
in favor of individuals and co-partner-
ships while denying all exemptions to
corporations having similar incomes de-
rived from like property and values, and
provides for other exemptions and in
capabilities in violation Of section of acticle
Of the constitution.
g. That the act provides no exemption of
the tax upon in comes derived from
the stocks and bonds of states of
the United states and counties
and municipalities therein, which
stocks and bonds are not proper
subjects for the taxing power of congress.
The income from these securities in the
United States amounts TO over $50, co.,
100 per annum on which the total annual
income tax would be 81, 10000
The body of the opinion was devoted
to the consideration of the question from
a constitutional point of view, and in
volved very elaborate definition of the
meaning of the phrase 'direct taxes and
also construction of the constitutional
requirement as to apportionmcnt. This
made necessary review of many former
opinions of the court, q number of which,
including the Hylton and Springer cases,
were quoted from at length and COM
mented upon. He said that under tho
constitution federal taxes were divided
into direct taxes and duties, imposts and
excuses, and laid down tho rule that di-
rect taxes should under that instrument
be governed by the rule of apportionment
among the several states according to pop
Status of the Law mt Present.
On the question of direct taxation and
as to the tax on state, county and NUM-
cipal bonds the court made q decision.
On the other questions involved it was
evenly divided and the ruling of the
court below, which sustained the law,
obtains. The court decides that its inva.
lidity on the points decided does not
affect any part of the law but those
points-in other words, the law is oper-
alive except as to those points.