The Louisiana populist., 1895-07-26
DAMNABLE DECISION,
THE SUPREME COURTS ACTION
CONDEMNED.
Against the Common People, a Poi
soned Dirk Driven Into the vitals OF
the American Republic"

The decision OF the supreme court
in the income-tax case has placed this
nation twenty years nearer a revolu-
tion that may terminate in a reign OF
terror 1t has issued to the pluto
crat a patent of nobility-declared
that he belongs to privileged class
in nowise amenable to the laws that
govern the proletarian. 1t has erected
barrier between Dives and Lazarus,
drawn the line of battle between the
Cormorant and the Commune. 1t has
transformed the federal constitution
from a palladium OF liberty into an
instrument of oppression, the tool of
tyranny. That decision is challenge
to destiny, q red blanket in the face
OF an infuristed bull, a mockery of
Samson by foolish Philistines as he
stands blind and desperate, his brawny
arms encIrcling the pillars of our po-
litical temple. 1t is a crime against
the common people, a poisoned dirk
driven into the very vitals o. the
American republic, foul blasphemy
of liberty, equality and fraternity, the
terrestrial trinity of our fathers.
Doubtless the occupants OF the su-
preme bench resemble Brutus in that
they are ''all honorable men," but if
such a halting, illogical and every
way infamous verdict had been
brought in by a petit jury there
would have been more than . sus-
picion of bribery. The decision as
handed down by Chief Justice Fuller
reads like the special pleading of q
iack-leg lawyer, employed to defend a
rich but notorious robber caught de-
spelling the pantries of the poor.
Talleyrand declares that language
was made to conceal thought;
but even the Opaque verbal
food in which the decision
floats like grisly skeleton in sea OF
slime, cannot concel the fact that
Fuller knew the ruling was both dan
gerous and damnable. Like the lady
in the play, he doth protest too much
consumes an hour in a dismal fail
ure to establish a radical difference
between tweedledum and tweedlede.
1t reminds one of the plea OF Queen
Elizabeth that she possessed caval-
ry regiment of which neither horse
nor man could be hurt, viz, y regi-
ment OF tailors on mare. He Is too
evidently arguing to his own con-
science, which, like the dead Banquo.
will not down.
The four dissenting justices did not
accuse their associates of corrrup-
ton; but they did charge them with
having committed a crime with hav-
ing instituted adepotism of wealth.
with having deliberately endangered
the existence OF the American gov
ernment by an abortive science OF def
inition. Never before in the history
OF the supreme court did the dissent
ing justices express such indignation
over a de cision or intimate so plainly
that their associates were either fools
or knaves. The vigorous, almost in
sulting protests OF the dissenting JUS
tices; the tremendous monetary inter-
ests at stake, together with the
scholastic hair-splittings, argumenta-
tive writings and illogical twistings,
and turnings that distinguish the de-
cision, may mean much or little ac-
cording to the strength of the critics
confidence in the incorruptibility OF
the court. For my own part, l do
not believe that the betrayal of the
people was the result of direct bribery,
as in the case of Benedict Arnold; but
do delieve that such pressure was
brought to bear by the plutocracy
upon our court of last resort as to
shamefully defeat the ends of justice.
All men are more or less malleable,
and several members of our supreme
court exceptionally so-veritable
Trilbys in pants. who find it diff
cult to say nay to earnest pleading"
The decisions is simply an official
notification that upon the shoulders
of the poor must continue to rest the
burthen of taxation. The court de-
cided, by vote of 5 TO 4, that a tax
on income arising from interest or
rent Is direct therefore unconsti-
tutional unless apportioned among
tuc ScNtTdi stdtcS Ou y OASIS Ol pOpu-
lation; while tax on income derived
from labor, professional service or
merchandising is indirect and may
be imposed at the pleasure of con-
gress and without apportionment.
The gross injustice of such
ruling is too palpable to re-
quire comment, wbiel its utter
absurdity must be evident to every
man capable of reasoning from a pre-
mise to the simplest conclusion. A
has an annual income of 81 1000, 900,
derived from the rental of real estate
or interest on capital invested in secu-
rites; B has an income of 81, 900, de-
rived from the occupation of mer-
chant or machinist, butcher or baker.
Congress, according to the supreme
court, may, by q simple ..Be it en-
acted" tax the petty income of b.
but is forbidden to touch the colossal
income of A, except by apportionment,
II "a - Al II L