The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1895-05-21
A DECISION RENDERED
Income Tax Law Declared to
be Unconstitutional.
FIVE FoR--FouR AGAINST,
FoR--FouR AGAINST
Gathering of Clans in POrtlrnd-- Car
Isle Talks on Silver-Murderer
FredericksSaneL Will Hang.
Associated Press.

Washington, d. c., May O.-(Special to
the Astorlan)-The supreme court today
declared the income tax law unconsti-
tutional in toto. The justices against
the law were Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Gray, Field, Brewer and Shiras.
For the law were Justices Harlan, White.
Brown and Jackson.
At the outset in his opinion, Justice
Fuller said:
"Our previous decision was confined to
the consideration of the validity of the
tax on the income from real estate and
on the income from municipal bonds.
The question thus intimated was whether
such tax was direct or not, in the mean
ing of the constitution, and the court
went no farther, as to the tax on incomes
from real estate than to hold that 1t
,ell within the same class as the source
whence the income is derived. that is,
that the tax upon realty and the tax upon
receipts therefrom were alike direct,
while as 10 the income from municipal
bonds, that could not. be taxed because
Of the want of power Of the tax source,
and no reference was made to the ma
ture of the tax as being direct or ihdi-
rect.
1--WE are now permitted TO broaden the
field of inquiry and determine to which
Of the two great classes the tax upon
persons entire income, whether derived
from rents, or products. or otherwise
from real estate, or from bonds, stocks
Or other forms of personal property, be-
longs, and we are unable to conclude that
the enforced subtraction from the yield
Of all owners of personal property, In the
manner prescribed, Is so different from
tax upon the property itself, that 1t is
lot a direct but an indirect tax, in the
meaning of the constitution. The words
of the constitution are 40 be taken in
their obvious sense and have a reasonable
construction. We know no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words
direct taxes" on the one hand, and
duties, imports and exclses" on the 9TH
er, were used in the constitution In their
natural and obvious Senses nor in ar
riving at what these terms embrace, do
we perceive any ground for enlarging
them beyond, or narrowing them within
the natural and obvious import, at the
time the constitution was framed and
ratified, and passing from the text we
regard the conclusion reached as inevlta-
BILE when the circumstances which sur
round the convention and controlled Its
actions, and the views of those who
framed and those who adopted the con-
stitution are considered"
The chief justice discussed the reasons
for the constitutional provisions regarding
direct taxation. The states had plenary
powers of taxation, he said, but gave
up the great sources of revenue derived
from commerce and retained the power
of levying taxes and duties covering any
thing other than excises, but in respect
to them, the range of taxation was mar
rowed by the power granted the fed
eral government over Interstate COM
merce. While they granted the power OF
apportloning direct taxation they secured
to the states the opportunity to pay
the amount apportioned and recoup from
its own citizens in the most feasible way.
The opinion continues:
"It is said the TAX on the whole income
of property is not a direct tax, but a
duty. We do not think so. Direct tax
alton was not restricted in breaGh and
restriction thrown to the winds In an
other"
The opinion dismissed the Hylton case
with this comment;
What was decided in the Hylton case
was that the tax on carriages was an
excise and therefore an indirect tax"
The opinion next took up the argument
that tax on property is not a direct
tax, within the meaning Of the constl-
tuition, and said:
1--WE find 1t impossible to hold that a
fundamental requisitlon deemed SO Inn
portant as has been forced by two pro-
visions, one affirmative, and one mega
tive, can be defined away by forced dis
tinctions between that which gives value
to property and the property itself. The
stress of the argument is thrown, how
ever, on the assertion that income tax is
not a property tax at all, that is assess
ment upon the taxpayer, upon account
Of his money spending power, as shown
by his revenue for the year preceding
the assessment, and that rents received
crops harvested, interest collected, have
lost in connection with their origin and
although once not taxable, have been
transmitted in their new form into tax
able subject matter In other words
that income is taxable irrespective Of the
source whence It is derived"
The chief justice said that since the
court had held unanimously that the re.
ceipts from municipal bonds should moi
be taxed, because such bonds were In
struments Of states. the same ruie ap'
piled 10 revenue from other sources moi
subject to a tax. and that the lack Of
power TO levy any but an apportionec
tax on real and personal property equal
ly exists as to the revenue thereform
''The court does not understand" It slys
that an income tax has ever been re
garded in England as other than
direct tax"