The Washington times., 1895-05-21

considered as direct, and they had been
uniformly held to be. He quoted from The
views OF Justices Iredeil, Patterson aid
others on the operation of constitutional
provision as to apportipnnlent, holdIng that
the rule SHOULD be consulted only when il
could be reasonably applied.
The changes contemplated from the for
meT practice IN the matter, Justice Har-
Ian said, were little less than a revelation.
Every one conceded that The decisions in
former cases would have been the same as
they were if there had been no reference
in the Constitution To direct taxes. He
held the tax on rents to be a duty oRsome-
thing entirely distinct from the tax on land,
from which the rent was collected. He
combated the idea that rents were
levy OF land, in view OF tiie acI THAI the
present law was to continue in operation
for only five years. A tax on the land IS
generally a lien on land. while that on
rents is not. In its essense a tax on rents
is a tax on money where the tax is pjtyaGle
in money. He said that the present Ge-
cision was a step in advance OF its 'Crmer
deciUon, and said incidentally that the
present conclusion h3d been reached by a
bare majority. In his Judgme Mt, 10 say
nothing of former holdings of the court,
| the decision might We'll excite very rave
| apprehe nsion, in that il strikes at fAe au-
thority of the Gore ernment to protect itself
/ L
dency to return to the old system OF the
| time of federation. before the Constitution
| was adopted SuCn "A Change ucnacc,i the
| authority OF the Government, relieving, as
| it does, all the wealth of the country to the
! operations of the income tax. Such ii de-
! cision could not have any other effect than
| that of arousing such Indignation among
| the free men of the people that It would
never be repeated. 1t was wicked as
! sault upon the rights OF The people. He
| predicted that the decision would provoke
! a contest such as the country should have
! been spared.
| THINKS 1T IS TO BE DEPT.oRED.
In conclusion, Justice Harlan said, speak
ing of the decision of the court:
"Such result is one to be deeply de-
plored 1t cannot be regarded otherwise
than disaster to the country. The practi-
| CAL if not the direct, effect of the decision
! to-day is 10 give to certain kinds of prop
| erty position of favoritsm and advantage
| that is Inconsistent with the fundamental
. principles of our social organization, and to
/ invest them with power and influence that
may be perilous to that portion of the
American people upon whom rests the
| larger part of the burdens of the govern
ment, aud who ought not to be subjected to
the dominion of aggregated wealth any
! should be at the mercy of the lawless.
Justice Jackson at 1:45 began the de-
! livery of a dissenting opinion. 1t was un-
! derstood that he would be followed by
| Justice Brown. The dissenting justices
| therefore are Harlan, Jackson, Brown, and
| White.
JUSTICE JACKSON's DISSENT.
Justice Jackson said that he regretted
| that his strength would not permit him to
| prepare a full opinion. He concurred fully
in the opinion by Justice White at the
former hearing of the case and would con-
tent himself with adding briefly q few
points to that opinion.
| He could not understand, he said, what
| difference there was between that class of
| incomes decided by the court to be within
the rule of apportioninent, and to the class
decided not TO be within the rule of uni
formity. Nor could he understand how the
/ valid portions could be invalidated because
of the unconstitutionality of other portions
II the principle upon which this decision
was made was sound, it could be extended
SO as to render the entire act of 1894 in.
valid. The two portions of the income tax
were wholly sepaTable and to hold that
| an invalid portion broke down the valid
| portion was, he thought, without authority
and withou law.
No rule or canon, he proceeded, was bet
ter settled than that the court should moi
declare unconstitutional an enactment Of
the legislative branch of the government
| uuuless its repugnance to the Constitution
was clear beyond a reasonable doubt He
| objected to this decision of the court, be
cause be thought the court had adopted &
wrong method in arriving at its conclu
sious as to what direct tax was.
The founders of the Constitution had
bases of taxation i n view when the rule Of
apportionment for direct taxes was lai(
down, and they certainly did not have il
| view things which did not have a general
distribution. A direct tax on cotton, rice
or tobacco, for instance, laid by the rule OF
apportionment, would have been absurd
The trainers of the Constitution evidently
| had land in view.
POPULATION AND LAND.
There was a certain relation between
population and landJ But there was abso
lutely no relation between population and
personality, and the income therefrom, o.
rents or bonds and their incomes. A tax