Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1916-01-01
1HarINo rhE INCOME LAX.

Plans under contemplation Dy the
administration to increase the income
tar and threats from various parts
at the Eount1Y that such an increase
%fH reeah In many legal fights against
n tn recalls the fact that for fifty
Ayears past the fight for or against
Aederal income tax has been IN the
burts Of tho United States. At the
eaant time the supreme court has
nder advisement Ave different suits
sffken there for decision az to the le'
xhaAy OF the present income tax law
(The income tax imposed during the
CH war and the years Immediately
following were not attacked with the
sm4ousness OF later cases. It was not
nnfil the Cleveland administration
nlecad m income tax In the Wilson
fss41 ant that the night became seri-
Ous.
mo contest over the validity of the
tsx n 1894 and 1895 before the SUI
promo court w0 one OF the most Dlt-
ter ever fought out before that court
Ono Of tho lawyers, James Q. Garter
warned The court against setting up lts
siudemsnt 20 thwart the will Of sixty
million people. Joseph H. Choate,
ouposinQ. called upon the court to ex-
ercise IL judicial power regardless
Of any popular or populistic propa-
GandA-
AZ f,rst the court decided that the
+ar vas unconstitutional as to rents
from land because It was direct tax
not apportioned according TO popula.
ton. and it was unconstitutional as
- Interest on municipal bonds. Only
eixht Judges participated and they
were evenly divided as to the valid
ity OF other features OF the law. A
rehearing was granted and justice
Jackson. then dying, took his place
on the bench to listen to the last ar
xuments In his lifetime. Justice jack
son voted to sustain the law. Justice
Harlan created q sensation by an
nouncin9 from the bench that another
1ustice had changed his mind over
night on the question, and the ent1re
tax. both as to realty and as TO IN
come from personality was set ASIDE
on the ground that It was direct TAX
and not apportioned according TO pop
ulation. as was required by Inc con-
stitution Of direct taxes.
An agitation for an amendment 10
the constitution then began and con-
tinued until the amendment was sub
mitted to the states and was proclaim
ed a the sixteenth amendment to the
constitution on March !, 1913.
It provided: .
'Tho congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes on incomes from
whatever source derived without ap-
nortionment among the several states
and without regard to any census or
enumeration. III
Congress awaited itself Of the first
opportunity to exercise the new pow
er by Incorporating into the tariff
act which became effective October 3,
1913. the present income tax. Five
suits all challenging the validity Of
certain features of the tax were:
Frank r. Brushaber, stakeholder OF
the Union Pacific Railroad Co., seek
ing in the New York federal courts to
enjon the company from paying the
tax.
John F. Dodge and, Horace e.
Dodge, manufacturers of Detroit,
Mich. in the Michigan federal courts,
to enjoin the internal revenue collec-
tor from collecting the tax, largely on
the ground that 1t Disseminated
against copartnerships in favor OF cor
pOrationg.
John R. Stanton, stockholder Of the
Baltic Mining Co., in the Massachu-
sets federal courts, to entoin the COM
pany and others from paying the tax,
largely because Of the i've per cent