Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1895-05-22
WEDNESDAY,, MAY %, 1895.
1T IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
-S-I1e Income Tax Law Wiped Out b
the Supreme Court.

-S-S1e Income Tax Law Wiped Out by
the Supreme Court.
The much discussed and thoroughly
condemned income tax law, enacted
&8y the last congress as means of relief
no the government finances, is thing
,s3f the past. After having two hearings
ia the United States supreme court, it
WAS on Monday declared unconstitu-
2zional. In the second case there we're
Soar dissenting opinions, one each by
= Justices Harlan, Brown, White and
jackson, showing the standing of the
,e3ourt to have been five to four on the
G1nconstitutionality. Inasmuch as one of
sEhese dissenting opinions was handed
down by Justice Jackson, and as he
vas absent at the first hearing when
the court divided evenly on the ques-
sion of sustaining the law on all points
except those as to the tax on incomes
from rents and bonds, it follows that
cone of the justices who at first pro-
7g10unced for the law except on those
szwo points, changed his attitude after
che second argument. There is very
little question that Justice Shiras is the
zone referred to.
The main standpoint of the majority
eof the court. as given in the decision,
IS that tax on incomes arising from
@anz form of personal property is di-
sect tax, which enlarges upon the first
decision, when only real estate was in
~scluded. According to the constitution,
congress has no right to levy such taxes
unless apportioned among the sew
a3ral states. In commenting editorial
Kzy on the decision, The Milwaukee
Sentinel says:
The court declines to adopt the
o3plnlOn that an income lax is not a
property tax, nor crop tax, nor a
'ebond tax but only an assessment upon
"a taxpayer on account of his money
spending power. The contention was
one Of the main reliances of counsel
Ewho argued that the law was constitu-
<r5ional
The court holds that the want of
equality and uniformity in the tax,
Enough this is not the ground of the
decision, deserves attention, and ex-
zpresses doubt whether, if the tax had
sDeen apportioned among the states ac-
yacordiDg to the constitutional provision,
sany state could, In collecting the
amount Of its quota from its citizens,
naye allowed SO many exemptions as
zEre allowed by the federal law without
,ggjOlating its own constitution
Tie decision did not divide the
acourts0n party lines. Those who voted
against the law are ChiefJustiCe Fuller
s2nd Justice Field, Democrats. and JUS
t5lees Gray, Brewer and Shiras. Repub
Leans; those who voted for it are JUS
fices Jackson and White Democrats,
and Justices Brown and Harlan, Re-
Dublicans.
The great majority of the people will
Zoe heartily glad that the country is not
TO be burdened with this odious tax,
which could only be construed as an
Improper attempt at class legislation
s-3y incompetent lawmakers. It's pro-
visions threw a heavy taxation upon
thrifty concerns and allowed the SHIFT
Cess, monied individuals, who could
well afford paying, to escape.
As result of the decision, the
70 nited States Internal Revenue de-
8oartment at Washington Immediately
ISSUED the following instructions to
district collectors:
Income tax law declared unconstitu-
GIonal by the supreme court. Stop all
Work and forward the papers to Wash
zngton.
Thus several deputies and clerks
Vunder Collector NJ. F. Blumenfeld, of
this district, are thrown out of employ
anent. The work of collecting had not
progressed very far as yet IN this
state, the Milwaukee district having
paid in only about 50. 400 out of total
eof 100000. The tax in the Madison
district would not have been so large.