Birmingham age-herald., 1895-04-09
Rents or InoSr From Real Estate and State br Municipal Bonds
Cannot Be Tpuched-Effect of the Decision = No Extra Session of Congress
 Nec@ssitated.

WASHINGTON, April S.-The announce ment of the decision of the supreme court of the United States on the income tax cases today was made in the presence of crowded court room, the spectators lobby being thronged to it's utmost capacity. Public interest in the case had drawn an audience every decision day since the argu- ment took place that has taxed the power and ingenuity of the officials to care for.
 Among those within the rail today were: Attorney General Olney, Assistant Attor- ney. General Whitney and Mir. w. D. Guthrie of New York, who took part in the argument; MT. J. Nj. Wilson of Washing ton, of counsel for J. G. Moore, who sought an Injunction to restrain Internal Revenue Commissioners Miller from proceeding to carry out the who so persistently fought the insertion of the tax provision in the tariff law; Ex- Secretary of the treasury Boutwell,, k. E. Bowler, comptroller of the treasury; Sen ators Mitchell and Hunton, Ex-Attorney- General Garland, Hon. George c. German and great number of attorneys more or less interested in the action of the court.
 The members of the court, except Asso- ciate Justice Jackson, entered the chamber promptly at noon. A few cases of minor importan nee were disposed of, and the chief
 
 the sitting on Thursday the court would adjourn over Good Friday and several or ders of the court, after which the great case of the day was read by him.
 He said, amidst an almost painful still ness.
 s'I am charged with the duty of announce ing the opinion and judgment oi the court in the case of Charles Pollock vs. the Farm ers' Loan and Trust company ct al"
 THE CONCLUSIONS OF TEE COURT were stated to be as follows:
 1. That by the constitution federal taxa tion IS divided into great classes: Direct taxes and duties, imposts and excises.
 2. That the imposition of direct taxes is governed by the rule of apportionment among the several states, according to numbsrs, and the imposition of duties, imposts and excises by the rule of uni fofmity throughout the United States.
 B. That the principle that taxation and representation go together was intended 10 be and was prescribed in the constitution by the esta blishmept of the rule of appor- tioumeDt among the several states, so that such apportionment should be according to numbers in each state.
 A. That the states surrendered their power to levy imposts and to regulate commerce to the general government and gave it the concurrent power 10 levy direct taxes in reliance on the protection afforded by the rules prescribed, and that the compromises of the constitution cannot De disturbed by etutiye action.
 5. That these conclusions result from the text of the constitution and are sup ported by the historical evidence furnished by the circumstances surrounding the framing and adoption of that instrument and the views ot those who framed and adopted it.
 6. 1l.at the understanding and expecta- ton at the time of the adoption of the con- stitution was that d.rect taxes would not be levied by the general government except under the pressure of extraordinary exi- gency, and such has been the practice down to August 15, 1894. If the power to do so is to be exercised as an ordinary and usual means of supply, that fact furnishes an additional reason for circumspection in disposing of the present case.
 z. That taxes on real estate belong to the class of direct taxes, aud that the taxes on the rent or income of real estate, which is the incident of it's ownership, belong to the same class.
 8. That by no previous dec sion oi tbis court has this question been adjudicated to the contrary of the conclusions now an. nounced: I hat much of the act of Au- gust 16, 1891, as attempts to impose a tax upon the rent or income ofreal estate with out apporiioument is invalid.
 THE SECOND oRoUED.
 The court is further of the opinion that the act of August 15, 1894, is invalid so far as it attempts 10 levy a tax upon the in- come derived irom municipal bonds. AS a municipal corporation is the representative of the state and one of the instrumentali- ties of the state government, the property and revenues of the municipal corporations are not the subject of federal taxation, nor Is the income derived from state, county and municipal securities, since taxation on the interest thereirom operates on the power to borrow before it is exercised and has a sensible influence on the contract; and, therefore, such tax is tax on the power of the states and their instrumental- tties to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the constitution.
 Upon each of the other questions argued at the bar, to-wit:
 1. Whether the void provisions as to rents and income from real estate iuyalidate the whole act7
 2. Whether as to the income from per