Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-04-09
l NOT TO CALL CONGRESS
President Does Not Think an
 Extra Session Necessary.
DECISION ON THE INCOME TAX.

ied-A Tie on the Other Points.
 WASHINGTON, April a.-Tho president, ! m being asked whether, in view of tho de- | riSlon of the supreme court on tho income | tax law, an oxtra session of congress would l bo called. said that neither he nor the sec | rotary of tho treasury saw any necessity for such action. and that unless there was | an unexpected change in conditions he ! had no idea that congress would meet \ again before the time appointed for its l regular session.
 After almost n month of deliberation l tho United States supreme court rendered its decision in tho income tax cases de- | ciding hy divided court the Jaw to be valid except as regards tho incomes de- | rived from rentS and from municipal bonds on which points the decision was | that the tax was unconstitutional
 The interest which has characterized tho caso from tho beginning was again | made manifest by an unusual attendance of tho public in tho courtroom. The space is limited at best but every available seat inside and outside tho bar was occupied, | and many wcro turned away because the | chamber could not accommodate all who | applied for admission. Only members of the bar woro admitted in tho inner circle. | and those in attendance included many | lawyers from other cities, as well as large | representation from Washington. There | wcrc several senators in the list, including | Hill of Now York, Lodge of Massachusetts and Lindsay of Kentucky. Attorney Con carl Olncy WAS also present..
 Justice Jackson's Absence.
 Thoro was only one member of tho | bench nhscnt-Justice Jackson. who has not boon ablo to bo in attendance upon \ tho court since last fall and who has not | participated in the consideration of the | case in any way. It Is to his absence that tho even discussion of tho court on tho majority of tho propositions involved in tho case is due If ho had been present, such a result would have been impossible and tho opinion would have included n discussion of all the points involved in stead of only tho two in regard to the in- comes derived from rents and municipal l and stato bonds.
 The spectators had not long to wait for | tho beginning of tho delivery of tho main | opinion after tho court convened. Tho judges filed in promptly at high noon. and thcro was vory littlu preliminary work bofuro the chief justice began tho deliv- cry of opinion which Is regarded by | many as tho most important and farroach- ing in its effects that has beon rendored | in this court since tho days of the robol- | lion. Thcrc worc only two minor deci | sionS rendered by other members of the bcnch
 Thon Chiuf Justice Fullur, after mak- l ing q flow routine announcements, began to rcad the courts decrco in tho case of Charles Pollock versus tho Farmers Loan and Trust company and others.
 This was tho first in order of tho cases against tho trust companies and tho con clusions reached in it apply also to the | If nfaI company, as tho questions at issue arc the same in both cases Tho chief justice read with considerable rapidity but his vOico ! was ut all times clear and distinct, and lawyers present who had familiarized themselves with the ease had littlo or no difficulty in following him. Tho delivery of tho opinion consumed an hours timo, and all present. gave the closest attention.
 Justice FuIlcr's Decision.
 The body of the opinion was devoted to tho consideration of the question from a constitutional point of view, and involved u vCry elaborate definition uf tho meaning of the phrase "diruCt taxes. and also n cunSt rIctiun of thu constitutional rcquire- mcnt as tu apI"rti"nmrnt Former upin ions uf the court. amuug which were in cludrd thu llylt"u and Springer cases, wcro quoted from at length and comment cd upon. He said that under tho cunsti- tuition federal taxes wCr' divided into di- rect taxes and duties, impOStS and cXCiscs, and laid down tho rulo that direct taxes should under that instrument be govern cd by the rule of apportionment among tho several states according to population. | Much of this reasoning was meant to apply to the question of the taxation of incomes derived from rents, but the chief justice devoted considerable part of the opinion to the especial consideration of this branch of the inquiry and held that in taxing tho income derived from land 1t virtually and to all intents and purposes taxed tho land itself, for, he asked. what was the land to any one but for the profit derived from 1t? He failed to sec any dis tinction between tax on the land itself and on tho profit derived from it, and no one had gone so far as to contend that a tax on land would not be direct tax. As Hamilton had put it. What in fact, is property but fiction without tho bene- ficial use of it?'' Tho name of tho tax was unimportant, but tho effect was of vast | conScquence and as there could be neither distinction or material difference between taxing the land and tho profit derived from it the court had reached the opinion that this portion of the law was invalid and could not be sustained.
 | The same conclusion was reached in re- gard to the provision for taxing stAte county and municipal bonds but into this question the chief justice did not go as fully as into that of rent incomes.
 He said in effect that 1t was clearly never intended by the states to delegate authority to the national congress to weak on their credit by providing a tax upon their instrumentalities and revenue agencies. Power to tax these agencies must of n necessity imply the exercise of an influence upon contract before 1t was made Such an exercise of power was repugnant to the constitution, and there fore the portion of the law putting 1t into execution must also be declared invalid.
 On tho other points involved the Opin. | ion did not venture because of the even division of the court.
 Treasury OmcIals Dispirited.
 The treasury officials are greatly dis pirited over tho supreme courts decision in the income tax case, and while admit ting that they have no reliable data upon which to form an accurate estimate they express the belief that the net result of the decision will be a loss of at least 50 | per cent in the receipts from incomes.
 In some cities the loss will be far greater than this, notably in the city of Washing. ton, where tho loss Is expected to reach 7t per cent. Washington, however. is ex- ceptionally renting city. The proportion of rented houses in other cities of the coun- try Is very large
 In 1890 the rented houses in New York city were nearly 94 per cent of the whole. In Boston it was S1 per cont; in Brook lyn. Sl; in Cincinnati, so. and in Jersey City, S1. In the other large cities the percentage ranges down to 56 at Roches- tor. In New York city thero were 2y2. v5o rented houses; in Philadelphia. 1b7, sos fin Chicago l56, 586; in Brooklyn, lS9. 04O.
 The total number of rented houses in
 the United States in 1890 was 1. le0, 4S7.
 which during the last five years has un-