The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-04-16
LAW NOT ANTAGONASTOC TO
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Justice Hyderik's Opinion in Cases
from the Circuit Court in Manning
Judge Watts Decision Affirmed.

OF ID. w. Alderman against l.. L. Wells,
the treasurer Of Clarendon county,
afhrming the decision of Judge Watts
who decided the law was constitution
al when the case was argued before
him in September, 1903, at Manning
The case was argued by Assistant At
torney General DeBruhl and J. H.
Lesesne. Later the case was ap-
pealed to the supreme court. The
opinion is by Associate Justice Hy-
drick. Mr.. DeBruhl also argued
the case in the supreme court
The opinion holds that the act does
not violate either the constitution of
this State or the 14th amendment of
the constitution of the United States
The provision of the 14th amend
ment, which it was alleged that the
income tax law violated, reads as
follows:
mo State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of the citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State de-
prive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within it's
jurisdiction the equal protection of
the law"
Section 5, of article 1, of the con-
stitution of South Carolina is to the
same effect and in nearly the same
words.
The decision in ruling on this point
is to the effect that under the pro-
vision of the income tax law there
is no taking Of property without due
process of law and no denial of the
equal protection of the law.
1t was alleged by Mr.. Alderman
that the income tax law was uncon-
stitutional in that it denied to him
the equal protection of the laws and
due process of law in that:
1. Incomes under $2,5OO are not
taxed and incomes over said amount
are taxed, this being an arbitrary and
unreasonable classification and not
being founded on the said incomes
supporting a family or being used
In any particular manner or by any
class Of persons.
2. That incomes less than $1,000
pay a tax Of 1 per cent. and incomes
from $4,000 to $4,000 pay a tax of
1-2 per cent.
3. That said includes all natural
persons and excludes all corporations.
4. That nearly all plaintiffs in
come for the year for which said tax
| was assessed was derived from divi-
dens received from stock in corpor-
ations chartered under the laws of
the State of South Carolina, and the
said corporations had been required
to pay the franchise tax in proportion
| to the amount Of the capital stock as
| required by the laws of the State of
South Carolina and in addition, the
said corporations had been taxed and
required to pay taxes upon their
| property for the usual State, county
| and municipal purposes and the same
| amounts to an unreasonable discrim-
ination against and tax upon the
| stockholders Of corporations
5. In that no tax is assessed against
the increase in values Of property
during the year, or from property
sold at greater than cost price or
for an increase for market value in
stock, bonds or other investments, this
being an unreasonable and arbitrary
classification Of property for taxation.
6. In that no deduction is made
for any interest or other like expen-
ditures which reduce the net income
and are not exempt in said act rs
expenses Of carrying on business.
Z. In that no deduction is made
for taxes or other assessments paid
the government, the said income tax
act thereby being a tax on other
taxes and subjecting some property
to double and treble taxation.
8. In that no deduction is allowed
for losses without regard to the ma
ture or cause of same.
1t is also alleged that the act vio-
lates sections 2 and Of article 10 Of
the constitution and that it was re-
yealed bV section s of the SupDly act
of 1905.
Under the graduation adopted the
tax is equal and uniform as to the
class upon which it operates and af-
fects equally and alike all members
of the same class and there is, there
fore no unlawful discrimination.
The opinion continues: Next, it is
alleged that the act violates section