The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1916-01-24
The United States Supreme
Court Declares Meas
ure Constitutional
DECISION FOLLOWS
LONG LITIGATION
Several Cases Were Started
in Various Parts of
the Country

Washington, d. c., Jan. 24-The
United States supreme court to-day up
held the constitutionality of the income
tax law.
Five separate suits to test the consti-
tutionality of the new income tax were
brought in the federal courts throughout
the country soon after the law became
effective and all found their way to the
lsupreme court of the United States soon
latter.
For nearly 80 years the fight for and
against a federal income tax has been
somewhere in the courts. The income
tax imposed during the Civil war and
the years Immediately following were
not attacked with the seriousness of lat
err cases. 1t was not until the Cleveland
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 1894 and 1895 before the supreme
court was one of the most bitter ever
| fought out before that court. One of the
lawyers, James G.. Carter, warned the
court against setting up its Judgment to
tlwart the win of 60,00OO00 people. Jo-
seph II. Choate, opposing, called upon the
court to exercise its judicial power re-
gardless of any popular or populistic
propaganda.
At first the court decided that the tax
was unconstitutional as to rents from
land because it was direct tax not APP
portioned according to population, and it
was unconstitutional as to interest on
municipal bonds. Only eight judges par
ticipated and they were evenly divided as
to the validity of other features Of the
law A rehearing was granted and JUS
tice Jackson, then dying, took his place
on the bench to listen to the last argu
ments in his lifetime. Justice jackson |
voted to sustain the law. Justice Harlan |
created sensation by announcing from |
the bench that another Justice had |
changed his mind over night on the ques |
tion, and the entire tax, both as to real /
ty and as to income from personality I
was set aside on the ground that IL was
a direct tax and not apportioned accord
ing to population, as was required by the
Of direct taxes.
An agitation for an amendment to the
constitution then began. 1t came to
nothing until Pres. Taft recommended
the enactment of an excise tax on cor
porations to be measured by their in
come and an amendment to the constitu
tion to permit the levying of an income
tax on all income. The amendment was
to the states at once and was
proclaimed as the 10th amendment to the
on March |, 1913.
1t provided: II
"The Congress.shall have power to lay !
and collect taxes on incomes from what
ever source derived without apportion !.
ment among the several states and with Il
mt regard to any census or enumera-
Lion."
Congress avaiIed itself of the first OPP
Dortunity to exercise the new power by
into the tariff act which
became effective Oct. 3, 1918, the present
income tax. Five suits, all challenging 4
.he validity OF certain features OF the
AK were:
Frank r. Brushaber, stockholder of the
Union Pacific Railroad Co., seeking in
he New York federal courts, to enjoin 9
he company from paying the tax.
John f. Dodge and Horace 4. Dodge, II
of Detroit. Mich, in the D
Michigan federal courts, to enjoin the ?
Internal revenue collector from collecting G
he tax. largely on the ground that it a
iscriminated against copartnerships in ;
avor of corporations.
John r. Stanton, stockholder of the
'altic Mining Co., in the Massachusetts,
ederal courts, to enjoin the company .
nd Others from paying the tax. largely
eeause of the ) per cent annual deduc-
ion from income allowed mining com s
anies for ore depletion. "
Tyee Realty Co., in the New York fed V
raj court to enioin the collector of in f,
ernal revenue. ii
Edwin Thorne, in the New York fed
raj court, to enjoin the collector, large di
7 on the ground that the additional or ii
nrtax imposed on incomes over $4,000 e,
as unconstitutional h,
In each instance the lower court held Il
ne tax constitutional and the case was r
rought to the supreme court on appeal.
he cases were advanced for early hear m
" and were submitted TO the court for "
acision ON Oct. 10, 1915, 20 years after ri
le first great income tax decisions. M