Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-01-11
ce,tm 81 tme United States, tax OF 2 mr.
ma 'a,n a on the amount SO derived opor
EXEMPT FROM TAX

4 ~
nroriS,o ,eneiships are excluded from thi,
| no,atf' states. municipalities cor
| porations. associations ore~,,I-o, e"l-
o99,ioucted for charitable. reIIeioue or
SuuSs"tional purposes; stooks sl,nras
enus OF securities held by anv 0duci'
ny or trustee which Is conducted an
haooa1 ar municipal plan and solely for the
are exempt. A'' ''ieso
IL was claimed by those asking tbe
'.,u ,a OIL the court that the income tar
WaS IN Violation of the provIslons :
y. the constitution of the United States
ocoause, frst, the law In question i'm
- po'ine a tax on the income OF rents
"l reai estate, thereby Imposes tax
lpon the real estate itself; and, second.
.he imposing of a tax on the intornct
or other income of bonds ar narson s1
property thereby imposes a tax unon
o"e personal estate itself, and that such
eaN was direct tax, and void be-
cause imposed without regard to the
constitutional rule OF apportionmcnt.:
ano' third, that the law was invalid be-
cause imposing Indirect taxes in viola.
tlon or the constitutional reouircmen,
OF uniformity. The claim was also made
toat taxation should not only be uni
Iorm' but shesar3 lie equal and Impair
.'ai; and that the law was invalid for
Imposing q tax upon income that was
received from state and munIcipal
ponds. which was in violation of a
great, unwritten principle that the gov
ernment should not tax the inStru-
mentalities of the states, nor the states
the instrumentalities of the general
government"
Judge Young referred to tho Consti-
tuition OF the nation in calculating tho
term direct tax" and after having
gone back to tho foundations OF United
States laws and quoting a number of
notable decisions. finally deduced:
First. we adhere to the opinion al
ready announced that taxes on real
estate being indisputably direct taxes,
taxes on the rents or income of real
estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. we are of the opinion that
taxes on personal property or on the
income of personal property. arc like
wise direct taxes.
Third, the taxes imposed by sections
"a to 81. inclusive, of the act of 1894.
so far as 1t falls on the Income of real
estate and of. personal property. being
a direct tax in the meaning of the Con-
stltution, and therefore unconstitution-
al and void. because not apportioned to
representation, all those sections con-
shutting one entire scheme of taxation
are necessarily invalid. thus practically
nodlnR the whole act invalid.
And now the important question
arises and Is to be considered by the
legislatures of the several states and
particularly by this state, whether or
not We are going to sustain an amend
ment to the Constitution that practi-
caaly does awaywith those time -honored
principles in regard to direct and in
direct taxation and to representation
going hand in hand with taxation. so
strenuously fought for and carefully
maintained by the builders of the Con-
stitution. VIII we sustain an amend
ment that opens the door to taxation
that Is utterly inconsistent with the
fundamental principles OF our govern
ment. just because, in the language of
q chief justice, a government of dele
gated powers should be found to be
not less powerful but less absolute than
the imagination of the advocates of
governmental power had supposed?
"No one wishes to curtail or limit the
government of the United States in its
necessary and proper powers; no one
having Its interest at heart denies to
the government, IL the exigcncy arises,
the power and right to take every inch
of ground, every piece of property. nay
zen OF this great republic. but II all
these are taken they should be taken in
accordance with the rules of the law of
the land and never contrary to those
great bulwarks of civil liberty so care
fully prepared by the eminent men who
sat in the convention of 1883"