Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-09-20

portant portion of the most vital and es-
sential power Of the government in prae-
tically excluding any recourse to incomes
from real and personal estate For the
purpose of raising needed revenue 10
meet the governments wants and neees-
sites under any circumstances. "-Ib 706.
These are only samples of the language
used in many places in the dissenting
opinions of the four justices of the mi
nority. These considera lions had no in
1uence with the five who on this occa-
sion composed the majority. and judg
ment was rendered predicate on a bald
technicality everything an unbroken
course of decisions of the supreme court
from Hylton's case in 1896 to the year
1884 concurred in or approved by all our
greatest lawyers, both judges and au
thors, such as Kent Story, Chase, Cooley,
Miller, Pomeroy and Ordronaux, and Yir-
tually pronouncing lawless and void the
numerous income lax laws heretofore en-
acted and enforced, and declaring the ex-
action of multiplied millions. collected UNI
der them no better than robbery under
the form of law. Should Hanna's man
become president the country need not be
surprised if the refunding Of all income
taxes hitherto collected should be de-
manded. Even now the syndieates, trusts
and combines are contributing to Hanna's
corruption fund in proportion to what
taxes they would have paid had the in
como tax law stood; some say 90 per cent
of what would have been their annual
income TAX. They make these contribu-
tons as investments, which they expect
to be returned with enormous usury from
the treasury of the United States.
At the time this decision was rendered
it was commonly reported that the law
yers at the bar who conducted this as
sault upon the taxing power of the United
States received $25O,OO from the syndi-
cate of millionaires whom they repre-
scented. 1t has never yet been divulged
how much was paid to the syndlcate's
hirelings who managed the case ana from
other influential positions.
The limits of even the longest newspa-
per article are too narrow to criticise this
decision Anyone curious to examine the
matter on both sides and to see on what
a flimsy bubble the treasury of the re-
public was deprived of its rightful reve-
nues and reduced to state of chronic
deficiency and millonaires relieved from
just and equal taxation and the burdens
they should and could easily have borne
loaded upon the struggling millions of the
people has only to read the reports of the
case of Pollock VS.. Farmers Loan and
Trust company, 157 United States reports.
page 429, and Of the same case on rehear-
ing, 15S United States reports, page COL
Truly and we'll did Mr.. Bryan say at
Chicago:
"They tell us that the income tax ought
hot to be brought in here; that 1t is
new idea They cliticise us for our crlti-
cism of the supreme court of the United
States. My friends. we have not critl-
c.sed we have simply called attention to
what you know. If you want criticism
read the dissenting opinions of The court.
That will give you criticism. They say
we passed an unconstitutional law. L
deny it, The income tax was not uncon-
stltutional when it was passed. 1t was
not unconstitutional when it went before
the supreme court for the first time. 1t
did not become unconstitutional until one
Judge changed his mind, and we cannot
be expected to know when judge VIII
change his mind.
1.-THE income tax is "a just law. 1t SIM
ply intends to put the burden of govern
ment justly upon the backs of the peo-
pie am in favor of an income tax