The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1895-04-13

one. Al to whether the void provisions
of the DOT invalidates the whole aot the
court 8 equally divided. Az to whether
d. income from personal property isssa
direct tax the court is equally divided.
Whether those parts OF the tax which
are not considered direct taxss are ,ln-
constitution for want Of anifo nifty the
court Is equally divided. In favor Of
the entire law there is one vote. Against
every provision OF the law there is one
vote. This leaves the question in 8 very
unsettled condition. On all questions
on which the court was equally divided
the act stands because the decision Of
the lower court controls in case Of q i-
vided court. But the principles involved
are practically undecided; first, because
there was not q full court, and second,
because the circumstances Of the case
did not call for q decision upon all ques-
tions involved. It must not be supposed
that Congress has no power to levy
an income tax. No lawyer questions the
power Of Congress to do this The only
point in dispute is as to the manner in
which such tax shall be assessed. Con-
gress has absolute power to tax anything
and everything except an export, for
such is the provision Of the United States
constitution. But in levying taxes there
are two rules which must be observed,
because they sre provisions of the con-
s6tution, which is above Congress.
First, all direct taxes must be appor-
toned among the several states accord
ing to their population; second, all indi-
rect taxes must be uniform throughout
the United States.
Now all taxes are either direct or indi-
rect and hence fall within one or the
other OF these rules except tax on ex-
ports which is forbidden. Congress can
pass law providing for direct or an
indirect tax, but in so doing it must OBJ
serve the rules laid down above. It the
tax is direct it must be apportioned, if
indirect 1t must be uniform. The diff
Guilty is experienced IN deciding what is
direct and what an indirect tax. Con-
gress assumed when it passed the law of
1894 that all taxes provided for therein
were indirect taxes and consequently it
would not be necessary to apportion
them, but it would be necessary to make
them uniform. Congress, when it as
sessed all incomes above $4,000, under
stood that it was complying with the
law as to uniformity. And indeed it had
good reason to believe that the tax was
uniform, for the supreme court CEN
fury ago by unanimous vote held that
uniformity did not mean that q tax
must apply to everybody, but only that
it must apply to everybody of particu-
lar class. Hence tariff tax which is an
indirect tax need not apply to every
body, but only to those who manufacture
and use particular article, for instance
wool. Such law is not invalidate be-
cause it does not include cotton or those
who use cotton goods. 1t appears, there
fore, if tax applies to everybody who
has an income of 81 900 it ia uniform, but
upon this question the court was equally
divided.
The court held that q tax on land rent
was direct tax, for "what is land but
the profits thereof" says Justice Field.
While undoubtedly this is now the law
and as it comes from Justice Field than
whom there is no greater judicial mind
in the country, it deserves the greatest
respect, yet We cannot understand how
such tax can be said to be direct tax
on land, for if the land is not rented or
the rent not collected there is no tax, yet
everybody knows that u land tax attaches
whether the land is productive or not.
The very fact that the tax attaches to
the rent and not to the land makes it ap.
pear an indirect rather than direct tax.
But the majority Of the court says other
wise and we can only say that "the learn
ing and refinement of the lawyers pass
eth ordinary understanding It should
only be kept in mind that the decision Of
the supreme court has nothing to do
with deciding the power of Congress to
levy such taxes as provided for in the
law of 1894. The decision only goes to
the manner Of the levy. The power Of
Congress to tax is absolute and unques-
toned and consequently bears no argu-
ment.
It is pleasing to record the fact that
the court has not divided upon party
lines. Two Democrats and two Republi-
cans opposed the entire law. One Dem
ocrat and three Repu blioans supported
it wholly or in part. Justice Jackson,
Democrat, did not sit. OF those who
heard the case, Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Field and White are Democrats
while Justices Harlan, Brewer, Shlras
and Brown are Republicans. It might
be interesting to know how they voted.
In favor of oonstitutionality Of tax on
rents; Justices Harlean and White,
against such tax Justices Fuller, Field,
~ ~1IE -if - = II