The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1895-04-27

te<=es IN Rent and eondr-
WASHINGTON. April 25.-The text Of
the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in
the income tax case which was deliv-
cred April was made public Wednes-
day. The opinion is preceded by an
elaborate review Of the his
tory Of the case. The opinion
proper Is introduced with the
statement that 'the constitution pro-
vides that representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the
several states according TO numbers
and that no direct tax shall be laid
except according to the enumeration
provided. and also that all duties. i'm
posts and excuses shall be uniform
throughout the United States"
Thus In the matter of taxation the
constitution recognizes the two great
classes of direct and indirect taxation.
and lays down two rules by which
their imposition must be governed,
namely, the rules of apportionment as
10 direct taxes and the rule OF uni
formity as To duties, imposts and ex-
cises.
BY far the greater part of the opinion
is devoted to the consideration of the
question whether a tax on rents is "A
direct tax within the meaning of the
constitution.
The opinion here reviews numerous
decisions under the act OF 1861, inelud-
ing the Springer case, which was
largely RELIEF upon by counsel for the
government in the present case to sus-
tain their contention. Chief Justice
Fuller says:
III Is conceded In all these cases, from that
Of Hilton TO that OF Springer, that taxes on
land are direct taxes and In none OF them
is Il determined that taxes on rents or income
derived from Land arc not taxes on land"
Summing up. the chief justice says,
among other things:
THE requirement OF the constitution Is that
no direct tax shall DO laid otherwise than by up
portlonment The prohibition is not against di-
rect taxes on land. from which the implication
Is sought to be drawn that indirect taxes on
land would be constitutional. but Il Is against all
direct taxes, and II Is admitted that a tax on
real estate IS o direct tax Unless. therefore.
a tax upon rents or Incomes issuing out
OF lands Is intrinsically 50 different from
a tax on the land itself that IT belongs
10 wholly different class OF taxes such
taxes must DO regarded as falling within
the Same category as tax on real estate
co nomine. The name OF the tax Is unimpor-
t8nt The real question Is is there any basis
upon which 70 rest the contention that real es-
tate belongs TO one OF the two great classes OF
taxes and the rent or income. which Is tho
incident OF It's ownership. belongs 10 the othery
We are unable - perceive any ground
for the alleged distinction An annual tax
upon the annual value or annual use OF real
estate appears 70 Us the same In substance rs
an annual tax real estate. which would DO
paid out OF tho rent or income. This law taxes
the income received rrola land ana the growth
or produce OF the land
Nothing can be clearer than that what tho
constitution intended TO guard against was the
exercise by the general government OF the
power OF directly taxing persons and property
within any state through majority made up
from tho other states.
we are OF opinion that tho law in question.
so far as II levies a tax on the rents or Income
OF real estate. IS In violation OF the constltu-
tion aud IS invalid"
Comparatively brief space is devoted
To the question OF a tax on the income
derived from municipal bonds. The
opinion says.
The tax on government stock Is thought by
this court 20 be a tax on the contract, tax on
the power to borrow money. ON tho credit OF
the Cnited States. and consequently 10 DO re-
pugnant to the constitution.
Applying this language TO these municipal
securities, IL is obvious that taxation on the
interest therofrom would operate On the powor
TO borrow before Il Is exercised aud would
have a sensible Influence on the contract, and
that tho tax in question Is tux on tho power
OF the states and their instrumentalitles TO
borrow money and consequently ropugnant TO
the constitution.