Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1895-04-11

'llAll1 en1'e'nD'
tf.rhe T6o onB Tax LaN Suffers IN
I ! y. sn2ss.als. Court.
!. Ss,d Rat Il. Com,ss Decision E1-g
1s--- eni ipt I5siiulords~-arid Bondholders
from Payment on Rents and
Interest In Securities.
! CH1cAGo,- April 6.-The Tribune this
morning publishes a Washington spe
Ecial over dyeseolumns in leugth giving
what purports to be an authentic out
1fng st TIE coming supreme court de-
cision with reference to the income tax
Elawgzpd theaae BATES Of thSaJIst FEES in
i The casa s,the special says: s
' & FL sass;:sF MaRsn ds@fhe Law. 81
1.-THE United States supreme court has shot
the income tax law full OF holes. The de-
l-cision has hsens completed and put into type,
U and only awaits formal fatifcatbaasaf the BON
sultation to be held at noon to-day. The de-
cision OF the lower court is reversed but the
income tax as whole is upheld. put only bylla
| divided court.
1.-TWO Important portions of the law, how
ever, hage4heens decided to healncq tisntional,
and they are SO serious as to affect materially
! netson4yss EYRE revenues ofathe government but
the estimation in which the income tax will be
held by the people.
t 81 ~ The Important Changes.
"Under the decision to be handed down by
the court, probably next Monday but possibly
;. later all incomes derived from rents are
I exempted from taxation by the federal gov
eminent and all incomes derived from state
and =. municipal bonds are similarly ;ex-
empted. ~@lnS other trespects5tha income stax
Law stands as-it was passed last August, but
| the result of the consultations in the supreme
| court shows very cOncluStvely that the law
can easily he picked to pieces piecemeal, pro-
vided suits are brought to contest each par
ticular point as it comes up.
I 1T Is curious fact, but none the less true,
| that the law which was passed at the dictation
of the populistic wing OF a democratic con-
gress has been distorted by the decision OF
Il The. plited gSt4teA supreme cOuTr*Glearly on
Eoustitu tlonA ground Sin such way that =
4 wilFabsolutely protect the class Of capitalists
most offensive to the populistlc element.
Landlords and Rondholders Exempt.
1.-The landlords OF the country will pay no
income tax. The owners OF bonds OF almost
4 any kind, either federal, state, county or.
InuQicipaL wilEalsobe free, while the business
I man. the manufacturer and the salaried en-
ploye will, for the present. at least, be CON-
Epelled to contribute to: the treasury OF the
| United States government per cent. OF all in.
| comes in excess. OF 81 900 per annum. =: .! r:
The holes made in the income tax law are
SO fatal as to necessltate either gits repeal or
4 Its nlateriaI amendment Jas tho people pfathe:
4 country VIII hardly care to see the large CAPT
tal1sts and trust panieS absolutely pro-
.teetsd~ poor men; comparatively
speaking, are forced to contribute to run the
national governments
THE entire income tax law as passed by
both houses OF congress and approved by the
| 80 y~s$ - hnnr
i trembling bnfance sfofStwo Eeeksand
& nov will tsbesconstruedaas q constitutional
statutE oilly because thss supthme epurtof thb.
United States. while upsetting two portions of
the law, is evenly divided on the general
d pripeiple otYthe eonstitntionality OF the whole
pEFiea a, t,,' Coassisut,ona,ity.
when the first vote was taken to the
general principle Of the constitutionality OF
law Of congressyta King Inc omesi it was found
that the court was evenly divided. Only
eight justices heard the, arguments. Mr.. JUS
tice jackson being too III to appear IN court.
The vote disclosed the fact, that Chief
! Justice Fuller and justices Field, Gray, and,
EBrewer were opposed to the law in'toto. they
believed it was unconstitutional as passed by
congress, and thatit was a direct tax which
according to the constitution must be levied
among the states according to the population
as returned by the census. ~ g. -. :s.;,;:
| justices Harlan, Brown, Shiras and White
voted to sustain The lava a whole. They be-
leyed and supported their. opinions by a con-
vincing argument that while particular por-
lions of the law were clearly unconstitutional
I the general effect OF an income tax could not
be considered as opposed to the principles laid
down in the constitution.
+ U.s., Decided by Five to Three. > ,>.,.-'
'On this proposition as to the constitution
atty o! the law in so far as it related te rents
.,.ps:
Judges Field Gray and Brewer, who believed
the whole law was unconstitutional, voted
=. with Justice BROWN thus Gliding ,tht 8 par
ticular portion OF the law unconstitutional by
q vote OF 8 to J This was the first and most
serious break for the entire income tax Law. :
a The question then camesQp,eot course Eas to
1t whether the ruling out OF lncom derived from
4 rents would make the %hnles 1aT hnpGs u
tional. On this point JusticeBroWn promptly
deserted his. four allies--and the court was
again evenly divided Theyshad decided the
tax on rents Unconstitutional, but the question
OF whether that invalidated the whole law or
not Mag5st f:ss Tar from item em dseTer.
i :-fns break FeameA finally. from the place
| where it was least expec ted. Chief Justice
Z Fuller, who believed that the Whole law vas
i BAlaadn direety tola don otlhecensN ddnA
i LIN iiati on pom the poker 1885 I'd leVY
1 saxes.S Was peTsnadeuI finally sthat3 fsnEs
q t0uld sexempte d from t. atlon BY the court
without interfering with the constitutionality
! Of the statute asa whole leaving that to be
il affirmed b. the doubtMl process Of a divided
! Court. The deadlock was broken to q certain
extent: by this proceeding and the court Was
4 thus enabled to upset, two Important pafts=of
| the law, leaving the remainder OF the income
tax to- be practically affirmed. because o di-
! vtded court can neither affirm NOR reverse, the
decision Of the court below, which accordingly
stands
,---~F field Sternly Against the Law.
i -s~.The~ most vigorous opponent of the law
throughout was Mr.. Justice Field. who would
consent to no compromise; who believed the
law unconstitutional from beginning to end,
and who supported his opinions. in all the con-
: SITUATIONS in the most vigorous and able
manner. It is entirely probable that he will
!; write and submit a strong dissenting opinion.
holding that the law IS unconstit ptlona iatt-
+ self and. limiting at the com ptoiafa hieh has
/ been reached by wi chcertain elassessok eap-
j ixaIists Will be undull favored while others
i have q
Opinion. "a. 8
rue opinion Of the court, 3D. ms II was
I agreed upon. was turned over TO the chief
Z E11stice and he bored Oh It tor four days go
I FIR as can be learned putting aside all other
business and endeavoring to. make decision
/ which would be satisfactory tog the conflicting
] clements In the. court tue opinion states
| specifically that the decision OF the court be-
i lOW41n increases 81 lQarleS k.ONDchs sa&aNSg
f the Farmers loan and Trust company OF
Louis H. Hyde against the Continental
Trust company, and OF John g. Moore
against the commissioner OF internal
revenue is reversed; and then goes on to
/ state that the trust companies are re-
strained from paying any income tax on reve-
nues received from the rents Of real estate or
from interest paid on state and municipal
bonds Of all descriptions, The Is also
| stated that the supreme court is evenly divided
on the question Of the constitute onahtE of,the
/ income tax, and hence that that portion OF the
decision of the. court below isneither afirmed
orreyefsed., $50, 1 szs g
THE expectation among members of the
court Is that the decision will be rendered
Monday in open court, but the justices have
been so evenly divided ever since the argu-
ments were concluded that the decision as Ii
1 now stands is so much o matter OF comprO-
mise and patchwork that there is a bare possi-
bility that at the final gathering to-day the
court may again split up into slrreconcilable
! sections and hold up the decision until they
TIsare able to- come together again.