Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1895-05-24
THE INCOME LAW.
DISSENTING OPINIONS OF JUS
TICES HARLAN AND JACKSON.
The Action Of the Court ssStrikes
tiOnai Authority''-''n Gives to
Certain Kinds of Property n
Position of FavOritIsm..'


mer hearing it had been adjudged that
tax on rents was a direct tax and
must be apportioned among the states.
He had dissented from that view, con-
curing in the able opinion Of Justice
White, to which he thought nothing
could lie added. He wanted, however,
to add an additional authority, the
opinion OF Justice Strong in the case
OF Clark vs.. Sickles, which he quoted
at some length. He said this decision
Was significant, and meant that yirtu-
ally all incomes could be taxed. JUS
tice Harlan said he would later file an
opinion giving his views in detail, and
his views as now printed will he of
general character. capitalization
taxes and taxes on land, he contended,
should be considered as direct, and
they had been uniformly held to be.
He quoted from the views of Justices
Iredell, Paterson and others, on the
operation Of the constitutional provi-
sion as to apportionment, holding that
the rule had been consulted only when
it could be reasonably applied. The
changes contemplated from the for
mer practice in this matter, Justice
Harlan said, was little less than rev.
citation. Every one comedies the de-
cisions in former cases would have
been the same as they were if there
had been no reference in the constitu-
ton to direct taxes. He held the tax
on rents to be duty, or something
entirely different from tax on land
from which rent was collected. a tax
on land is generally lien on the
land, while that on rents is not. In
its essence tax on rents is a tax on
money, and the tax is payable in
money. He said the present decision
was q step in advance of the former
decision and said incidentally that the
present conclusion had been reached
by a bare majority. In his judgment,
to say nothing of former holdings of
the court, the decision might well ex-
cite very grave apprehensions. Con-
tinuing he said:
"In my judgment this decision
strikes at the very foundation of ma
tional authority, in that it denies to
the general government a power which
is or NAV at some time in a great
emergency, such as that OF war, be-
come vital to the existence and pres
ervation OF the Union. 1t tends to re-
establish that condition of helplessness
in which Congress found itself during
the period of the articles of confedera-
ton, when it was without powers. by
laws operating directly upon individu-
ais, to lay and collect through its own
agents taxes sufficient to pay the
debts and defray the expenses Of gov
eminent, and was dependent in all
such matters upon the good will OF
the States and their promptness in
filling the acquisitions made upon
them by Congress.
"In it's practical operations, this de-
cision witbdraws from national taxa
ton not only all incomes derived from
the sale of real estate, but the per-
eonal property OF the whole country
personal property, bonds, stocks. in
yestments of all kinds, and the income
that may be derived from such prop
erty. This result is from the fact that
under the decision OF the court such
incomes cannot be taxed otherwise
than by apportionment among the
States on the basis simply OF popula'
ton. No such apportionment can
possibly be made without doing mon
strous, wicked injustice to the many
for the benefit of the favored few in
particular States. Any attempt on
the part OF Congress to appor;ion tax.
alton on incomes among the States
upon the basis of their population
would, and properly ought, to arouse
such indignation among the freemer
of America that it would never be re.
peated. The majority practically de-
cides that without an amendment o.
the constitution such incomes car
never be made to contribute to the
support of the national government.
"If this new theory OF the constitu
ton, as l believe it to be in this new
departure from the way marked out
by the fathers, is justified by the fun
damental law, the American people
cannot too soon amend their constitu
ton.
1.-THE judgment just rendered de
feats the purpose Of Congress by tax
ing out of the revenue not less thar
100000 and possibly 5O00O, OO(
expected to be raised from incomes
We know from the official reports o
both houses of Congress taxation
would not have been reduced to tn,
extent it was by the Wilson act bu
for the belief that if the country hat
the benefit of revenue derived from /.
tax on incomes, that could be safely
done. In every possible way the TIVE
houses of Congress indicated tina
must be part OF any scheme for TIT
reduction of taxation and for raisin,
, revenue for the support of the govern
, ment, that with certain exceptions
incomes arising from every kind O
property and from every trade ant
: calling should bear some of the bur
, dens OF the taxation imposed. If thu
the court knows or is justified in be
lieving that Congress would not hav'
, provided an income tax which did no
, include q tax on incomes from rea
estate, We are justified in believing
the Wilson act would not have be
come q law at all without provision
being made for it in the income tax
If, therefore, all the income sections
of the Wilson act must fall becaus,
some Of them are invalid, does not tn,
Judgment this day rendered furnish
ground for the contention that tn,
entire acts falls when the court strike,
from it all of the income tar provi
sions, without which the act woulC
never have been passed? But the
court takes care to state shat there il
no question as to the validity of an,
part OF the Wilson act, except those
which provide for . tax on incomes
Thus something is stated for supper,
and maintenance OF government.
"The practical if not the direct eff.
feet OF the decision to-day is to give to
certain kinds of property a position Of
favoritism and advantage inconsistent
with the fundamental principle of our
social organization, and to invest
them with power and influence that is
perilous to that portion OF the people
upon whom rests the larger part oil
the burdens of the government, and
who ought not to be subjected TO the
dominion of aggregated wealth any
more than the property of the country