Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-05-19

from United States bonds and profession
al earnings. When the law of 1894 came
before the Supreme Court counsel argued
that income from land cannot be distin-
guished from land itself, and. therefore.
If a tax on land is a direct tax, as every
one comedies, 1t follows that tax on an
income derived from land is also a d.
rect tax Upon this argument the court
decided in the first case than tax upon
income derived from lands was a direct
tax, and. therefore, inhibited by the
Constitution except under apportionment.
There was an even division of the court
upon the question of whether the re-
mainder of the law should be declared
unconstitutional because this part of it
was so held. There was one phase of the
controversy, however. upon which the
court was unanimous. and that was in
declaring that the part of the law which
put tax upon incomes derived from
state bonds was unconstitutional not be-
cause it was direct tax, but because the
federal government had no right to tax
the instrumentalitias of state.
OF course, such a decision tore the in
come tax law to pieces. and there seemed
no other way
Decision Tears out of the diff
Tax Law to Pieces. onon , nd ~ -.
matter and to argue it all over again.
Counsel opposed to the law built their
arguments upon the opinions of the court
In the first case and declared that if, as
the court had held. a tax upon income de-
rived from land were a direct tax then
also a tax upon the income from personal
property would be direct tax Justice
Jackson had not participated In the hear
ing of the first case, and arose from what
proved TO be his deathbed to hear the ar
guments on the rehearng. He voted in
favor of the constitutionaIity of the law
and since the vote had stood four to four
on the first hearing. his vote in favor of
the law must have made it constitutional
had not one of the justices affirming the
consttutionality of the law in the first
case changed his vote and registered him.
self against it. Who that justice was is
not known, For a long time 1t was
claimed that 1t was Justice Shiras, but
more recently claims were made that it
was not he, but Justice Brown. Others
assert that 1t was Justice Field. Probably
1t will never be known. But, at any rate.
one man who on the first hearing had
voted to uphold the law changed his mind
and voted against it on the rehearing.
Many careful authorities assert that the
court did not take time to make it's own
investigations. and. therefore. relying
upon the representations of counsel, 1t
was gravely misled, and that this fact is
disclosed by an examination of the at
firmative opinions. For instance. it was
argued that a Frenchman by the name
of Turgot had written a pamphlet on tax
alton in which he pronounced an income
tax direct tax, and that this work was
in the hands of the trainers of the Con-
stitution. Chief Justice Fuller accepted
this and used 1t as an argument in his
opinion. Prof. Seligman of Columbia Uni
versity shows that no such work ever
was published in France, much less
translated in the United States. Hurgot
did write a little memoir. in which he
contended that the only direct taxes were
poll taxes and land taxes.