The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1895-04-12
DIVIDED ON THE lHcOME TAX.
Judges Differ on the Question CT Its
ConstltutIoaslity.
NO TAX 0NLASDOR B0EBIEC0AES.
Decision Read by Chief Justios FaIler-
Revenues Of the Government Cut
90 Per Gent.

90 Per Gent.
WASHINGTON. April 8 -After almost
month of deliberation ths United
States supreme court rendered its de.
oision Monday in the income tax cases,
deciding by a divided court, the Law to
be valid, except regarding incomes de-
rived from rents and from municipal
bonds, on which points the decision was
that the tax was demonstrations. There
was an unusual attendance Of people IN
the courtroom to hear she opinions
read. Only members Of the bar were
admitted 10 the inner circle and thoss ia
attendance included many lawyers from
other cities as we'll as a large represen-
tation from Washington. There were
several senators in the list, including
Hill Of New York, Lodge Of Massachu.
sets and Lindsay Of Kentucky. Attorney
General Olney was also present.. The
judges filed promptly ia at high noon
and there was very little preliminary
work before the chief justice began the
delivery Of an opinion which is regarded
by many as the most important and far
reaching in its effects that has been
rendered in this court since the days of
the rebellion.
Justice Fuller, after making a few
routine announcements, began at 1905
to read the courts decree in the case Of
Charles Pollock against the Farmers
Loan and Trust company and others.
This was the first in order Of the cases
against the trust companies, and the
conclusion reached applies also to the
case Of Hyde against the Continental
Trust company, as the questions at issue
are the same in these cases.
Mr.. Fuller began with brief refer
ence to the question OF jurisdiction in
the case. This point had, he said, been
frequently referred to, but he dismissed
it by saying that as the question had
been raised in the court below and had
been shelved in the argument OF the
case in the supreme court, there ap.
peared no objection to considering the
case purely on It's merits. Proceeding
to this end, he gave his attention to the
objections to the law, as made by the
appellant, quoting the principal ones IS
follows:
i. That the act imposes 8 direct tax in
respect of the real estate, rents. issues and
profits, as we'll as OF the incomes and prof
its of personal property, and not being ap.
portioned, is In violation dissection Of an.
tiGle Of the constitution.
2. That the law, If not imposing a al.
rect tax, is nevertheless unconstitutional
in that its provisions are not uniform
throughout the United States and no not
operate with the same force and effect
upon the subject Of the tax wherever
found, or in that it provides exemptions
in favor Of individuals or copartnerships,
while denying all exemptions to CORPORA
lions having similar incomes derived from
like property and values, and provides for
other exemptions and inequalities in vio-
lation Of section of article one Of the con-
! stitution.
" = A~~-e -tA| [sGV DA0HA III CACAfAULlQu
Of the tax upon taxes derived from the
stocks and bonds of states Of the United
States and counties and Municipalities
therein, which stocks and bonds are not
proper subjects for the taxing power Of
congress. The income from these securi-
Uies IN the United States amounts to over
S06 100000 per annum. on which the total
annual tax would be 81 100000
The body Of the opinion was devoted
to the consideration Of the question
from constitutional point of view and
involved very elaborate definition of
the meaning Of the phrase direct
taxes and also a construction of the
constitutional requirement as to appor-
tionment.
Taxation and Representation.
1t is said the trainers Of the funda-
mental law had before them more prom.
inent than any other thought the idea
that taxation and representation should
60 hand in hand. The constitution was
the result OF q compromise between the
states and the federal government
whereby the states surrendered the
rights Of levying imports. duties and
eG1ises, but it was evident they did
not mean to transfer to the general
government the right to levy direct
taxes except in cases Of great emergen-
les. This compact, the chief justice
said, had been observed up the time of
the passage of the act Of August, 1894.
The chief justice held that in taxing
the income derived from land itself it
virtually and to all intents and purposes
taxed the land itself, for, he asked, what
was the land to anyone but for the
profit derived from it? It was clearly
never intended by the states to delegate
authority to the national congress to
weaken their credit By providing d tax
upon their instrumentalities and rev
enue agencies. Such an exercise of
power was Tspugnant to tbs constitu-
ton and therefore the portion OF the
law putting it into execution must al
ways be declared invalid.
The dissenting opinion delivered by
Justice Field, the oldest member Of the
court, was an exhaustive review Of the
case aad the principles involved ia it.
+ Some decisions Of the court, he said, had
thrown some doubt upon the meaning
Of direct taxes. but in the discussion
Of the British parliament the income tax
had always been considered a direct tax,
/ while the tax upoa real property, It's
FenW and incomes, had by universal
consent bssn recognized 70 be a direct
tax.
Treasury Oaeisia Dispiritsd,
Treasury officials are greatly disdirited
/ over the supreme courts decision on the
+ income tax case. aud while admitting
| that they have no reliable data upoa
] which to fern an accurate estimate,
they express the belief that the net Re.
salt Of the decision vii be a loss Of at
least 80 per cent in ths receipts from in.
comes. The loss Of revenue. however,
is not the only cause Of regret among
the officials The fact that the caart Isl
] rvrtflrr ftirefro7 o1, H.. reSs-s ..,,,-1t< !