New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-09
TEXT OF THE DECISION.

TT &c READ BY CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER IN The
pppsrNcr OF A CROWDED COURTROOM
u...,,nc,or Apr, S-The announcement of the
,,,or -, Tho Sunreme Court of the United States
!, tho Income Tax cases to-day was made IN the
nresence of a crowded courtroom the speV'a.ot'
lobby being thronged to its utmost capacity "'-
&c interest in the cases has drawn an at'eiiuaH0
oyerv decision day since the argument took place
that has taxed the power and ingenuity oil the oii
c,o,s 10 care for Among those within the ran TO-
aav were Attorney General Oney. Assistant At'oi-
ney-General Whitney and w. D. Outhrle, Vi Wv"
York who took part in the argument ). W. ""'C'''
of Washington. of counsel for }. a. Moore' WIN
sought an injunction to restrain Internal he'cnu.
Commissioner Miller from proceeding 10 carr! oa'
N. law. Senator David B. Hill. who so persistent!
fought the insertion of the tax provision III Wv ~,
Tariff law; ex-Secretary of the IreaSui! i,o"'"''
r T. Bowler Controller of the treasury oei.''
Mitchell and Hunton. ex-Attorney-General Garland
George C. Gorham and a great humpei VI c.
news more or less interested IN the actor" VI ~"
Court ,.,,
The members of the court except Justice Jackson
entered the chamber promptly at noon anu W..
received with the ceremonial Afternoon 'i'a' mo
thxit every entrance every one In the cour"o0'"
rising to his feet while the procession OF the JUS
tees headed by the Marshal OF the Court Hid'0"'N
in dgnifed order to their seats
few cases of minor Importance were disposed o.
and the Chief Justice announced that at 'he N
of the sitting on Ihursday the SOu'
over Good Friday He then read several oruers os
the court after which the great case OF the gay
was announced by him. He said' anna an ai'ios.
nainf,l stiffness: Il am charged with the duty Oh
announcing the opinion and Judgment OF the eour.
~ the case of Charles Pollock vs. the fa'iie''
Loan ana Trust Company ct al
TIE MAJORITY OPINION.
The conclusions of the court were stated to De as
follows: ., T.,
divided into two great casses-direct taxes ana
duties imposts and excuses. o. .,xos &c Governed
BY the rule Of am iSa sm 5ne Of
duties mposis and excuses by the rule of uniformity
throughout the United States o.,., o,d ron
resentation 90 together intended to be and was
preserved in the Constitution by the estaohsni,n ni
States. so that such appointment should be ac-
cording to numbers in each state, ,ber mower TO
levy mposts and regulate commerce to tne zen
era and gave 1t the 01 ba proecn
Afforded by the rules prescribed. and that the COM
promises OF the Constitution cannot he dis'uroea
That these conclusions result from the text OF
evdenee furnished by the circumstance surround
Ing the framing a bdse Tbo Framed and adopted
g. That the understanding and EXPECTATION az
that direct taxes would not be levied by the Cen
erai Government, except under the pressure OF eN-
traCTdna DOWN sH e nSgs sna 1874 the
do is to be exercised as an a adSona
reason for circumspection in disposing OF 'ne
I That real estate be ong TO the eD e,a e
of direct taxes and that the taxes on me rem or
income Of real estate S %h same Is class ns
That by no previous decision OF this court
has this question been ad1udicated 70 the CON-
81 That so much Of the Act OF August To- iSS4 as
of real estate without apportionment Is Invalid
The Court is further of opinion that the ACT OF
August 49, 1884, is invalid so far as IL attempts 10
levy tax upon the income derived from muhlc'pai
bonds As a municipal corporation is the repre-
sentative Of the State and one OF the
it,es Of the State government. the property and
revenues Of municipal corporations are not inc sun
tects of Federal taxation nor Is the income derived
from State county and municipal securities, since
taxation on the interest therefrom operates on the
mower to borrow before 1t Is exercised ana mas d
sensible influence on the contract and therefore,
such a tax is a tax on the power of the states and
their instrumentai;es TO borrow money, ana CoH-
sequently repugnant to the Constitution
I-non each OF the other questions argued at the
bar to wit: o. whether the void provisions as 70
rents and income from real estate invshdates the
whole act ~ whether as to the income from per-
sonaI property as SUCH the act is unconstitutional
as LAYING direct taxes 80 whether any part OF the
tax IL not considered direct tax is invahd TOT
want of uniformity on either OF the GROUNDS sus-
cested-the Justices who heard the argument are
pressed -, l,,~o,,, l.orr,
Z. reversed and the cause remande1. with direc-
tions 10 enter a decree In favor OF complainant In
resnect only of the voluntary payment OF the tax
on the rents and income OF its real estate ana tnat
which II holds in trust and on the income from
the municipal bonds owned or 50 held by It,
CHIEF JUSTICE FULLERS ARGUMENT.
Tho Chief Justice said that the Jurisdiction OF
courts OF equity prevent diversion Of funds by
breach OF trust illegal payment OF the funds had
been frequently affirmed by the court. The qucs-
ton was not raised In the court below. but had
been explicitly waived on the argument OF the case
and the court felt justified In proceeding to a de-
cision OF the its merits. He said that the
power to decide law unconstitutional was used
with reluctance but the responsibility could not
be evaded when the necessity arose.
The contentious respecting this law O. That
a tax on rents was tax on real estate. and that
not being laid according to apportlonment it
invalid: ~ that 1t was not uniform. and a VIOLA