The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-04-25
IS A DIRECT TAX.
Chief Justice Fuller Gives Full
Income Tax Decision.
The Tax on Realty is Certainly
a Direct One.
IT CANNOT BE LAID.
1T CANNOT BE LAID.
Constitution Prohibits it Except
by AppOrtiOnment.

WASHINGTON, April 25.-The full text
of the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller
in the income tax cases recently an
nounced in the supreme court has been
made public. The chief Justices opin-
ion dwells upon the contention of the
claimants in the cases pollard VS..
Farmers Loan and Trust Co. and Hyde
VS.. the Continental Trust Co.. against
the constitutionality of the law, and
in dissertation upon the matter of
taxes within the meaning of the con-
stitution, refers to the historical cir
cumstances attending the framing and
adoption of that instrument, and as to
what at the time of that event were
recognized as direct taxes.
congress-, says the chief justice,
''under the articles of confederation,
had no actual operative power of taxa
ton. It could call upon the states for
their respective contributions or quotas
as previously determined upon, but in
the case of the failure or omission of
the state to furnish such contribution,
there was no means of compulsion, as
congress had 10 power to lay any tax
upon individuals"
In the course of his ella borate pro-
duction the chief Justice says: 1.-The
requirement of the constitution is that
no direct tax shall be laid otherwise
than by pportiOnment-the prohibi-
ton is not against direct taxes on land
from which the implication is sought
to be drawn that indirect taxes on
land would be constitutional, but it is
against all direct taxes-and it is adj
mitted that tax on real estate is
direct tax. Unless, therefore, a tax
upon rents or income issuing
out of lands is intrinsically SO
different from a tax on the land itself
that it belongs to a wholly different
class of taxes, such taxes must be re-
garded as falling within the same cat
egOry as a tax on real estate go nOmine.
The real question is, is there any basis
upon which to rest the contention that
real estate belongs to one of the two
great classes of taxes, and the rent
or income which is the incident of it's
ownership belongs to the other? We
are unable to perceive any ground for
the alleged distinction. Nothing can
be clearer than that what the consti-
tuition intended to guard against
was the exercise by the general gov
eminent of the power of directly
taxing persons and property within
any state through a majority made
up from the other states. and we are
of the opinion that the law in ques-
ton, SO far as it levies tax on the
rents or incomes of real estate, is in
violation of the constitution and is in
valid. The tax on government stocks
the chief justice further cites, sis
thought by this court to be tax on
the contract, tax on the power to
borrow money on the credit of the
United States, and consequently to be
repugnant to the constitution
Upon each of the other questions
argued at bar, to-wit: Whether the
void provisions as to rents and income
from real estate invalidate the whole
act; whether as to the income from
personal property, as such, the act is
unconstitutional as laying direct tax;
whether any part of the tax, if not
considered as a direct tax, is invalid
for want of uniformity on either of the
grounds suggested-the justices who
held the argument are equally divided,
and, therefore, no opinion is ex
pressed.
The result is that the decree of the
circuit court is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to enter
decree in favor of the complainant in
respect only of the voluntary payment
of the tax on the rents and income of
the real estate of the defendant capital,
and of that which it holds in trust,
and on the income from the municipal
bonds owned or so held by it.