The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1916-01-25
CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE SETS
ASIDE MANY OBJECTIONS
TO THE LAW.
DECISION IMPORTANT ONE
Brings to an End a Case Which
Has Been Before the Courts
for Fifty Years-The Law Is
Constitutional.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 24-The SUI
Preme cuort today upheld the consti-
tutionality of the income tax law
Chief Justice White gave ,he courts
decision. sweeping aside all the many
objections urged to its constitutional
ity in who,e, or in part.
Chief Justice White announced the
decision in the case of Frank r. Bru-
shaber, stockholder of the Union Pa.
cific Railroad company. who had
sought to enjoin the company from
paying the tax on the ground that 1t
was unconstitutional Most of the
opinion was directed toward proving
the error of the contention that the
income tax amendment provided +,
hitherto unknow npower of taxation
Advansing to other points the court
held that the tax was not unconxl
tutional because retroactive.
The point that the statue was un-
constitutional because labor, agrcui>-
tural and horticultural organizations
were exempted was held to be an.
swered by decisions under the cor
poration tax law. Chief Justice
White said the points was only an
other illustration of the erroneous as
sumption that the tax was imposed
under new power conferred upon
the government. by the sixteenth
amendment, whereas It was a nOWeff
IecogniZed to exist from the begin
ming of the government and this de-
cisions defining the tax power pre-
yious'y rendered were applicable to It.
Five separate suits to test the con
stitutionality 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 supreme court of the
United States soon after
For nearly fifty 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 later cases. 1t was
not until the Cleveland administers
tion placed an income tax in the Will
son tariff act that the fight became
serious.
The contest over the validity Of the
tax in 1894 and 1895 before the su
preme court was one Of the most bit
ter ever fought out before that court
One of the lawyers, James G.. Carter,
warned the court against setting up
its judgment to thwart the will of
sixty million people. Joseph H.
Choate, opposing, called upon the
court to exercise its judicial power
regardless fany popular populistic
propaganda.
At first the court decided that the
tax was unconstitutional as to rents
from land because II was direct tax
not apportioned according to popula.
tion, and was unconstitutional 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 re-
hearing was garnted and Justice
Jackson, then dying took his place
on the bench to listen to the last ar
guments in his lifetime. Justice Jack
Harlan created sensation by an
nouncing from the bench that an
other justice had changed his mind
over night on the question, and the
entire tax, both as to realty and as
TO income from personality was set
aside on the ground that 1t was di
rect tax and not apportioned accord
ing to population, as was required by
the constitution of direct taxes