Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-16
RETURNS ENJOINED.
Restraining Order Granted by Judge
ShOTalter in Chicago.
INCoME-TAx TO BE TESTED.
The Act In It's Entirety to lie Taken
TO the supreme Court for Adjudi-
cntion-Grounds of objection 10
the Law.


CHICAGO, ILL, April 15.-Judge Sho-
walter, In the United States Court. this
morning snjoined Siegel, Cooper & Co.
from making any return 10 the Internal
Revenue Collector under the provisions
Of the income-tax law. The restraining
order was granted on bill filed by
Gerson Siegel. one OF the New York stock
holders in the defendant cooperation. The
bin attacks the law and under the order
granted this morning the government VIII
be compelled to take part IN proceedings
to defend the operation OF the new law.
When the attorney for Mr.. Siegel pre-
scented the bill to Judge Showalter the
latter asked for an explanation Of the
application.
This Is the last day for the return
OF the income-tax TO the Collector OF
Internal Revenue" said the attorney.
MY client protests against his firm
making any payment Of the tax, or any
report. lie maintains that the bill In It's
entirety Is unconstitutional. All we ask
Is an order restraining the firm Of Slegel,
Cooper q Co. from making It's return
to-day II not granted the firm viii be
liable 10 the imposition OF N,00 fine for
falling % make the return
Judge Showalter took the application,
ard after reading IL made the restrain
Ing order. a bond Of $500 viii be Med
to-day.
By the issuance Of the order OF the
Court the firm escapes the payment 81 the
fine should the Supreme Court. 20 which
l. TarfNs again II
the complainant
Mr.. Sieeei. IN his bill. raises all OF the
questions that are involved IN the income
tax dispute. including those decided by
the Supreme Court last week.
GROUND OF ACTION.
Ills grounds FOR the unconsututionality
Of the act are set forth In the following
order.
The provisions Of the income-tax are
Unconstitutional. null, and void and v
c0l.ect.ble upon the defendants income
or profit II is a direct tax in respect 10
real estate. and in respect 10 its personal
property. by levyng an impost upon the
profits and income thereof. which direct
taxes are not in and by said act appor-
toned among the several states, as re-
dulred by the Constitution Of the United
States. II not a direct-tax the tax is
not uniform, az required by the Consttu-
ton.
The profits Of many corporations
amount u Jess than 1900, and SAID TAX
IS imposed on such corporations. although
individuals carrying on and transactlhs
similar businesses under Ike conditions,
and HAVING ike property values and
quantities and incomes are exempted
by the act from the power Of said tax
IAN Not UNIFORM
"The tax IS not uniform. because your
orator has an annual income and. as ne
f. informed. numerous holders Of stock
in corpora tons likewise have annual H.
comes. q Jess than S4GoJ, and the effect
Of such payment will BE- 70 lessen and
diminish the dividends OF such stock
holders and compel them 10 bear and
pay the tax. although other parties OF the
same class. similarly situated, whose In
come o. less than the $500. are exempted
IL is not Uniform In that II h. imposed
upon [ per cent. u the population N
the United States, ana the other % per
cent. are exempted although they mold
among themselves the greater part Of all
the property, real and personal, in the
United states. IL Is not uniform tn that
d tax Of ? per cent. IS imposed upon
an incomes acquired by gift or Inherit
upon real estate acquired under similar
conditions.
1t = not q uniform tax in that II
cxempts fl0m rs operations all mutual
Insurance companies whose aggregate
wealth ls tl.2pVJ00J, and imposes the
tax upon all other Insurance companies.
u exempts building and loan associations,
whose aggregate holdings are N-s.OJ.tO
yet such are certainly private in their
nature. Savings banks operated upon the
mutual plan are exempted from the Ope-
ration Of The tax whose aggregate de-
pcslts are T.7isGGGg while al other
savings banks are taxed.
THE tax is not Uniform because u
varies according ar the property belongs
% an individual or to more than one
individual
The tax j. unconstitutional In that
Il imposes d tax upon property rights
vested prior % the passage are the said
act. and 70 depriyes persons o. their pro-
perry without due process q law"
TO TEST THE ACT.
Mr. siegers attorney said that It was
Intended - test the entire act before the
Supreme Court
That part Of the act which remains In
force" said ~. els due % a divided court
ard e. the opinion ~ the court below.
Had thu opinion u the court below been
against the constituti0naIty % tire en-
tire act The decision o. the Supreme
Court would have caused the law % fail
by bringing the matter up again we may
get an opinion from the Supreme Court
As General Black the United States
District Attorney. is out of the city. and
VIII not return for some days. 10 action
VIII be taken 81 calling up the Issue for
a hearing until next Monday.
ANOTHER INJUNCTION SUIT.
BALTIMORE. ND. April l5.-st0ck-
holders % the Georges Creek Coal and
Iron Company filed "a suit today. IT, the
United States Circuit court. asking for
an Injunction restraining CoiiectOr-Of-
Internal-Reyelue Nandiver from en-
forcing several provisions u the i-come-
tax law. The petitioners assert that
they are owners % land in Allegheny
and Garrett counties. Nd. and a
notice has been sent them % make
returns Of an incomes over san
The point made by j. 4. Alexander.
attorney for the petitioners Is that ac-
cOrdlng % the recent decision Of the
Supreme Court. a tax on the profits r.
allied from real estate Is unconstitu-
toinal. and that mines being real estate
come under this decision. and are.
therefore. exempt from the 2 per cent.
tax.
The result Of the litigation VIII be
whatever the decision. viii probably 90
70 the Supreme Court o. the United
States.