The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-01-24
Supreme Court Decides Up
on the COnstitutionaity
of the Measure
FIVE SEPARATE
SUITS WERE BROUGHT
Soon After the Law Became Effective,
and All Found Their Way to the Su-
preme Court Sooner or Later-Fight
on Tax for Many Years.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24-The supreme
court today upheld the constitutionality of
the income tax law. Five separate suits to
test the consttutlonality OF the tax were
brought in the federal courts throughout
the country soon after the law became ef-
fective and all found their way to the su-
preme court of the United States soon
after.
For nearly 30 years the fight for and
against federal income tax has been
somewhere in the courts.
The income tax imposed during the Civil
war and the years Immediately following
was not attacked with the seriousness of
later cases. 1t was not until the Cleve-
land administration placed an income tax
in the Wilson tariff act that the fight be-
came serious.
| The contest over the validity Of the tax
in 1891 and 1895 before the supreme court
was one Of the most bitter ever fought out
before that court. One of the lawyers,
James c. Carter warned the court against
setting up its Judgment to thwart the will
OF sixty million people. Joseph II. Choate,
opposing, called upon the court to exercise
its judicial power regardless of any popu-
lar or popuHstic propaganda.
] At first the court decided that the tax
was unconstitutional as to rents from land
because it was a direct tax not apportioned
according to population, and so was un-
constitutional as to interest on municipal
bonds. Only eight judges participated and
they were evenly divided as to the validity
of other features of the law. A rehearing
was granted and Justice Jackson, then d.
ing, took his place on the bench to lister
to the last arguments in his lifetime jus
tice Jackson voted to sustain the law
Justice Harlan created a sensation by an
nouncing from the bench that another ju4
tice had changed his mind over night OF
, the question, and the entire tax, both a!
to realty and as to income from personalit,
was set aside ON the ground that it wa
a direct tax and not apportIoned according
ito population as was required by the con
stitution of direct taxes
An agitation for an amendment to tn
constitution then began 1t came to moth
ing until President Taft recommended tn
enactment of an excise tax on corporation
7 to be measured by their income and a
amendment to the constitution to perml
. the levying of an income tax on all income
, The amendment was submitted to tn
! states at once and was proclaimed as tn
! sixteenth amendment to the constitutio
q on March l, 1912.
1t pIONlueu.
j, The congress shall have power to la
+ and collect taxes on incomes from wha
+ ever source derived without apportionmer
@ among the several states and without II
a gard to any census or enumeration"
A. Congress availed itself of the first oppo
II tunity to exercise the new power by inco
porating into the tariff act which becom
IT effective October 1, 1913, the present i
1f come tax. Five suits, all challenging ii
m validity of certain features of the ia
If were:
If Frank r. Brushaber, stockholder of Il
Union Pacific Railroad company, seekiI
in the New York federal courts to enjo
the company from paying the tax
John F. Dodge and Horace E. Dodg
manufacturers of Detroit, Mich, in t
Michigan federal courts, to enjoin the
. ternal revenue collector from colleetil
the tax, largely on the ground that it d
eliminated against copartnerships in fav
of corporations.
- John r. Stanton, stockholder of the b
ne Il tie Mining Co., in the Massachusetts, ft
III, eral courts, to enjoin the company a
eo others from paying the tax, largely becar
as Of the per cent annual deduction frt
all income allowed mining companies for {
ed depletion
he Tyee Realty company, in the New Yc
federal court, to enjoin the collector of
ternal revenue.
Edwin Thorne, in the New York fede
court, to enjoin the collector, largely
the ground that the additional or surf
eco imposed on incomes over $4,000 was
constitutional.
In each instance the lower court held
or tax constitutional, and the case \
.an brought to the supreme court on app
)ti The cases were advanced for early hear
nte and were submitted to the court for
"a cison on Oct. 10, 1915, 20 years after
on first great income tax decision.