The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-08-21
THE CHICAGO PLATFORM AND THE
SUPREME COURT.

-
Perhaps 1t would be too much to say that
there are other features in the Chicago
platform as dangerous as the demand for
the free and unlimited coinage of silver.
but there are others which. even without
that. should insure the defeat of the candi-
date who stands upon it. One of these is
its open attack on the Supreme Court OF
the United States. This attack is delivered
in several forms. one of which will be no.
dennis the Supreme Court for 1.-The adverse
decision on the income tax" and intimates
threateningly that the court may here
after be constituted differently. saying,
I'VE are opposed to life tenure in the public
service" Mr.. Bryan. in his New York
speech, said: I'm a government like ours
every public official is a public servant.
whether he holds office by election or by
appointment. whether he serves for a
term of years or during good behavior"
This official Interpretation of the Chicago
platform carries a great error as to the true
character Of our judiciary. The Constitu-
ton of the United States says that "all ju-
dicial officers of the United States shall be
bound by oath or affirmation to support
this Constipation" Obviously, therefore.
the judges of the Supreme Court are bound
to declare the Constitution upon their
oaths, regardless Of popular clamor or any
consequences whatever. The Constitution
also says: mo direct tax shall be laid (by
the Congress) unless in proportion to the
census" which the Constitution requires
shall be taken every ten years The grave
questions arising under the income tax law
were, in the main. first, whether a tax
upon rents of land or personal property
was a direct tax; and, second. whether a
tax levied on incomes from State, county
and other municipal bonds was a legal
tax. 1t has often been decided that the
federal government cannot tax a State or
other municipal bond; it might tax such
bends so heavily as to entirely destroy their
value and even their existence. AS to the
rents from farms and other real estate,
and incomes from personal property, the
great question was whether a tax on such
rents and incomes was a tax upon the
property itself, and. therefore, a direct tax
within the meaning of the Constitution. On
the one hand it was argued with great abil-
ity that land and other property was, in
the main, of no value except for the income
it would produce by labor. rents or the
like; that the taxation power of Congress
being unlimited when 1t could be exer-
cised at all, a law might be made taxing
rents from farms, blocks, houses and per-
sonal property equal TO the rents them
-ol-o- n~I fhorohxy anfiro1v DESTROY the
property. 1t was argued that in effect such
a tax was a direct tax on the property it
self. Or the other hand. 1T was commended
that a tax upon the rents was not a direct
tax upon the property. but only upon its
product. The case was twice argued, and
a majority of the judges held, in an opinion
written by Chief Justice Fuller, that that
portion Of the income tax law which taxed
the rents of property. personal and real.
regardless of the census or enumeration of
the people of the several States, was a di-
rect tax within the meaning of the Consti-
tuition, and therefore unconstitutional.
On some legal and constitutional ques-
ions men naturally divide according to
their early and fixed political principles.
In this case the cleavage was not along po-
litical lines. Justices Brewer and Brown,
classmates and lifelong friends, and belong
ing to the same political party. entertained
different judgments. So. also. Chief Justice
Fuller and Justice White. belonging to the
same political party, held to opposite views.
What. then. is the covert meaning of that
phrase in the Chicago platform which de-
clares that a new decision may come from
its reversal by the court as it may here
after be constituted?'
And what does Mr.. Bryan mean when.
in discussing this very decision, he says Of
the judges, Every public official is a public
servant, whether he holds Office by election
or by appointment" Some years ago,
when certain members of the Supreme
Court of Indiana refused to prostitute their
and oaths to the demands of a
Democratic editor who also thought that a
public judge is a party servant. he ex-
claimed in his wrath, Damn their cow
ardly souls.' This same spirit animates
the Chicago platform and the utterances
of Mr.. Bryan.