Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1895-04-09
atcs, othat s,.s;l apportlonment should

states, so that st.to;i apportionment should
be according to numbers in each state.
II. That the states surrendered their
powers to levy iinposts and to regulate
commerce &c the general government and
gave it the concurrent power TO levy di-
rect taxes in rcliancc on the protection
afforded by the rules prescribed, and that
the compromises Of the constitution can
not be disturbed by legislative action.
'5. That these conclusions result from
the text OF the constitution and are sup.
ported by the historical evidence fur
r...hei by the circumstances surrounding
the framing and adoption OF that instru-
Inent and the views of those who framed
md adopted it.
'6. That the understanding and ex-
pectation at the time of the adoption of
the constitution was that direct taxes
would not be levied by the general gov
ernmen5 except under the pressure Of ex-
traordinary exigency, and such has been
the practice down to Aug. u, 1894 II
the power To do so is to be exercised as an
ordinary and usual means of supply, that
fact furnishes and additional reason for
circumspection in disposing Of the pre- sent.
case.
"a. The taxes on real estate belo1G TO
the class OF direct taxes, and that the taxes
on the rent or income of real estate, which
is the incident of its ownership, belong to
the same class.
IS. That by no previous decision of this
court has this question been adludicatc1
to the contrary of the conclusions now
announced.
80 That so much of the act of Aug. l5,
1894. as attempts to impose Il tax upon the
rent or income OF real estate without ap.
portionEien: is invalid.
The court is further of the opinion
that the act of Aug. 10. 1894 is invalid so
far as it attempts 10 levy a tax upon the
income derived from municipal bonds.
As n municipal corporation is the repre-
sentative of the state and one OF the in
strumentalities of the state government.
the property and revenues OF municipal
corporations are not subjects of federal
taxation, nor is the income derived from
state county and municipal securities.
since taxation on the interest tEercfrun
operates on the power To borrow before II
is exercised and has a sensible influence
or the contract. and therefore such tax
is tax on the pnwer Of the states and
thcir instrUucntaiitieS TO borrow money,
ana cons. qucntly repugnant TO the con
,titut,on.
Upon each of the other petitions ar
eucd at the bar, To wit: First, as to
whether the void provisions Is to rents
and incomes from real estate invalidates
the whole act; second, whether as To the
income from personal property as such
the act iS unconstitutional rs laying di-
rect taxes; third, whether any part OF
the tax, if not considered rs IA direct tax,
is invalid for want of uniformity on
either of the grounds suggested, the jas
tices who heard the arguments are equal
ly divided, and therefore no opinion is e.
pressed"
There wc-e two dissenting opinions. one
by Field anu one by White, but their
grounds could hardly have been less sim
liar. Justice Fields opinion was largely
devoted TO u review of the provisions re-
gartling rents and Was q vigorous de-
nunciation of the principle sought to he
established by the income tax law, his
conclusions being in conformity with
those announced by the chief justice. He
also attacked the law on account of :hc
lack OF uniformity and dwc!t upon its ex-
cmptions and Determinations, which was,
he said, class leyislation--the exemptions
of savings banks, mutual Insurance COM
panies and building and loan associations.
tie quoted census figures to show the ex-
tent of the operations of these companies
and said that if these facts were not con-
vincinI congress could not BE- convinced
Though one rise from the dead" lie
took issue with those who contcnded that
there could be no legitimate limitation
upon the power of congress to impose
taxes. He concluded by declaring the en-
| tire law unconstitutional.
White took the opposite view as to di
rect taxation, holding that to tax rents
was not direct, nor could he see how the
chief justice could interpret the decision:
OF the past in favor OF the opinion h'
read. lie thought the opinion just reaC
| overthrow a long line OF decisions Con
grcss had. he held, unlimited power o
| taxation. The question was whether thi
| Income tax was "a direct tax and that has
been decided in the negative LOO year
ago. Justice Harlan also dissented {,
the proposition that tax on rents derive,
| from lands is direct tax.
| One claim of White was that sui
cannot be maintained TO enioin the col
lection of a tax, because by the text of ;
statute such right Is denied. The issu
was evaded by the injunction being aske,
against the corporation to restrain i
| from paying n tax Justice Whit
| thought this an attempt To do by indi
rection what was forbidden By the law
The proper way to fight the law was &
pay the tax under protest and then su
for its recovery.