Omaha Daily Bee Newspaper, May 21, 1895, Page 2

THE OMAHA DAILY REE: TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1895 _— Iarged by the acceptance of their logleal eon- sequences. “The very nature of the constitution, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall in one of his greatost judgments, requires ‘that only fts great outlines should be marked, its im- portant ebjects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deducted from the natare of the objecis them- selves. In considering this question then, we must never forget that it is a constitu- tion that we are expounding. “As heretofore stated the constitution di vided federal taxation fnto two great clas the clars of direct taxes and the class o duties, imy and excises, and preseribed two rules which qualified the grant of power as to each class, The power to lay direc taxes apportioned among the several states in proportion to their representation in the popular branch of congres:, such representa- tion based on population as asce 1 by th census, was plenary absolute; but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was for- bidden. The power to lay dut posts and exclses ubjeet to the qualification that the imposition must be uniform through out the United States “Our previous decision was confined to the consideration of the validity of the tax on th fncome from real estate, and on the inc from municipal bonds. The questi limited was whether such taxation was direct or not in the meaning of the constitution and the court went no further as to the tax on the incomes from real estate than to hold that it fell within the :ame class the source whence the income was derived, that 18, that a tax upon the realty and a tax from the rents therefrom were direct. With r gard to the tax from the incomo from munici pat bonds that could mot be taxed because of want of power to tax the source no refer ence was made to the nature of the tax as being direct or indirect. We are now per- mitted to broaden the fleld of inquiry and determine to which of the two great classes a tax upon a person’s entire income, whether derived from rents or products, or otherwise, of real estate, or from bonds, stocks or other forms of peronal properly, belongs are unable to conclude that the enforced gubtraction from the yield of all the owners of real or personal property in the manner prescribed is so different from a tax upon the property ftself that it fs not a direct but an indircct tax in the meaning of th constitution WORDS IN THEIR N “The words of the taken in their cbvious sense, and to have a reasonable construction. In Gibbons vs. Og- den, Mr. Chief Justice Marshail with his usuil felicity said: ‘As men whose intentions re- quire no eoncealment generally employ the words which most dircctly and aptly express the Ideas they intend to convey, the enlight- ened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must he understood to bave employed words in their natural sense and to have intended what they have said. We know of no reason for holding otherwise than that the words ‘direct taxes’ on the one hand and ‘dutles, impe 1 excls's' on other were used in the constitution in their natural and obyious senses, nor in arriving at what those terms embrace, do we perceive any ground for enlarging them b or narrowing them with'n their natural and ob. vious import at the time the constitution was framed and ratified. And passing from the text we regard the conclusion reached as dnevitable when the circumstances which sur- ounded the convention and controlled its a tion and the views of these who framed and those who adopted the constitution are con- sidered. “We do not cara to retra: traversed, but some observations added. In the light of the strugele convention as to whether (he nation shou be empowcred to levy taxes dircctly on the individual until after the states had failed t rospond to requisitions, a struggle which ¢ not terminate until the amendment to th effect proposed by Massachusetts and co curred in by South Carolina, New Hampshi New York and Rhod- [sland had been rejected, it would sesm beyond reasonible qu-stion that direet taxation, taking the place as it did of tions, was purposely resirzined to ap ient according to representaticn, in that the former sy:tem, to ratio might be retzined, while the mode of coll-c tlon was ehanged “This is foreibly fllustrated by a letter of Mr. Madizon of January 29, 1789, recently pub- lighed, written after the ratification of ths constitution, but befors the organization of the government, about the submission of the proposcd amendment to congress which, while opposing the amendment as calculated to im- pair the power only to be exercised ‘in ex- traordiary emergencies,’ assigns adequate ground for its rejection as substantially un neeessary, since he says ‘every state which choos"s to collect its cwn quota may always prevent a federal collection by keeping a little beforehand fn its finances and making ment at once into the federal treasury. REASONS FOR THE CURTAILMENT. On this point of the prohibition of direct taxation by the framers of th> constitution the court said: *“The reascns for the clauses of the constitution in respect to direct taxa- tlon are not far to seck. The states re- spectively possessed plenary powers of taxa- tion. They could tax the property of their citizens in such manner and to such extent as they saw fit; they had unrestricted powers to impose duties or imposts on imports from abroad and cxclses on manufactures, consum- able commodities or otherwise. They gave up the great sources of revenue derived from commerce; they retained the current power of levying excises and duties if covering anything other than excises; but in respe 1o them, the range of taxation was narrowed by the power granted over interstate com- merce and by the danger of being put at a disadvantage in dealing with excises on man- ufactures, ““They retained the power of direet taxa- tion and to that they looked, as their chief resourcs, but even In respect of that they granted the concurrent power, and if the tax were placed by both governments on the same subject the claim of the United States had preference. Therefore, they did not grant the power of direct taxation without regard to thelr own condition and resources as states; but they granted the power of ap- portioned direct taxation, a power just as eficacious o serve the needs of the general government, but securing to the states the opportunity to pay the amount apportioned and to recoup from their own citizens in the most feasible way and in harmony with thelr systems of local self government. I in the changes of wealth and populat particular states, apportionment produc equality, it was inequality stipulated for, just as the equal representation of the states however small, In the senate, was stipulated for. The coustitution ordains afirmatively that each state shall have two members of that body and negatively that no state shall by amendment be deprived of its equal suf- frage in the senate’ without its consent. MUST BE APPORTIONED. “The constitution ordains afirmatively that representative and direct tax:s shall be ap- portioned among the several states according to numbers and negatively that no direct tax shall be lald unless in proportion to the enumeration. The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, the cour tles, eities and towns would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected those of the federal gov- ernment would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And fn order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exereised, except on necessity, and when the necessity arose should be 0 exzreised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their resp-ctive obligations, and sliould not be so exercised unless fairly and diseriminately as to particular states or otherwise by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose coustituents were intentior- ally not subjected to any part of the burden, ATURAL SENSE constitution are to be o1 ground already may be in th T COUPON LINE OF BURDER CERTIFICATE. Anticipating the Right of the Subscriber to Participate in THE OMAHA BEE'S FREE BOOK DISTRIBUTION TUESDAY Mny 21, NE ""HIAVILATE with five cents 10 cover postage, mailing and elerical expensvs. entities the subscri- ber to one volume (pa) lected from the princed catalogue of e Omaha Hee Free-Book Distridbu- . Send coin; no stamps. ADDRESS Publisker The Omaha Bee, FREE BOOK DEPARTMENT, Omaha, Neb. 1LON | thus - | direet and we | he | the qualified grant was made. These who made it knew that the power to tax invelved the power to destroy, and that, in the lan- guage of Chief Justice Marshall, ‘the only secutity against the abuse of this power fs found In the structure of the government Itself.” In Imposing a tax the legislature acts upon Its constituents. This Is in general a suffictent security against erroncous and op- | pressive taxation,’ and they retained this | security by providing that direct taxation |and representatives in the lower house of | eongress should be adjusted on the same | measure | "“'Morcover, whatever the reasons for the con | stitutional provisions, there they are and they | appear to us to speak in plain language. Is #aid a tax on the whols fncome of propert is not a direct tax fn the meaning of the con stitution, but a duty, and as a duty leviable without apportionment, whether direct or in lireet. We do not think so. Direet taxation was not restricted in one breath and the re restriction thrown to the winds in another Cooley (on taxation) says the word ‘duty’ ordinarily ‘means an indireet tax impe n the importation, exportation or consumption of goo having a broaler meaning than custom, which is a duty imposed on imports or exports. That the term impost also sig ifies any tax, tribute or duty, but it is eel tom applied to any but the indirect taxes An exciss duty is an inland impost levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to | deal in certain commodities. QUOTES HAMILTON AND MADISON “In the constitution the words ‘duties, im- | posts and excises' are put In antithesis to taxes. In this connection it may be useful, though at the risk of repetition, to re- fer to the views of Hamilton and Madison, as thrown into llef in the pages of the Feder- alist, and In respect to the enactment of the carriage tax act, and again to briefly consider the Hylton case, so m dwelt on in argu- ment. The act of June 4, 1879, laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons, was enacted in a time of threatened war. It the as much a part of a system of ation in war times as was the income tax | of the war of the rebellion. The bill passed the house on the 20th of May, apparently | after a very short debate. Mr. Madison ani Mr. Ames are the only speakers on that day teported in the annals. Mr. Madicon objected to this tax on carriages as unconstitutional, and as an unc titutional measure he woull voto against “Mr. Ames €aid it was not to be wondered that he, coming from a different part of the country, should have a different idea of this tax from the gentleman who spoke last. In Massachusetts this tax had been long known and there it was called an excise, It was liMcult to define whether a tax is direet or uot. He had satisfied himself this was not so It appears then Mr. Madison regarded the carriage bill as unconstitutional, and accord- ingly voted against it, although it was to a large extent a war measure. \Where did Mr. Hamilton stand? At that time he was secre- tary of the treasury and it may therefore be assumed without proof that he favored the legislation. But upon what ground? He must, of course, have come to the conclusion it was not a direct X. Did he agree with Fislter Ames, his personal and political friend, that the tax was excise? The evidence i jverwhelming that he dil. From articles in he Iederalist it appears fo us to inevitably follow that in Mr. Hamilton's judgment at that time all internal taxes, except duties and excises on articles of consumption, fell into the category of direct taxes REASON FOR HAMILTON'S OPINION. “Did he, in supporting the carraige tax hil 1ge his views in this respeet? His arg ment in the Hylton case in support of th law enables us to answer this question. It was not reported by Dallas, but was published n 1851 by his son in the edition of all Hyl- on's writings except the Federalist. After ying we shall seck in vain for any legal ng of the respective terms ‘direct and inlirect taxes’ and after forcibly stating the impossibility of collecting the tax, if it is to bo considercd a direct tax, he says, doubt ngly ‘The following are pr med the only direct taxes: Capital or oIl taxes, taxes on lands and buildings roneral assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole reai r perzonal estate. All else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes. Daties, im posts and excises appear to be contradistin- guished from taxes. If the meaning of tho word exciso is to be sought in the British statutes it will be found to include the duty m carringes, which is there consilered as an excise. Where so important a distinction in the constitution is to be realized it is fair to seek the meaning of the terms in the statu- tory language of that country from which our Jjurisprudence is derived.’ Mr. Hamilton, therefore, clearly supportel the law which Mr. Madison opposed, for the same reason Fisher Ames did, because it was an excise, and as such was specifically com- prehended by the constitution. Any 1ooss ex- pression in definition of the word ‘direct,” sa far as conflicting with his well conceived views In the Federalist, must be recarded as the liberty which the advocat> usually con. siders himselt entitled to take with his sub- ject. He gives, however, it s:ems, to the Unifed States a definition which covers the question before us A tax on one's whole in 1e is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such it is a tax upon that property and a direct tax in th meaning of the constitution CASE BADLY REPORTED. “And Mr. Hamilton, in his report on the public credit, in referring to contracts with persons of a foreign country, said: ‘This principle, which scems critically correct, would exempt as well the income as the capital of the property It protects the use as effectually as the thing. What, in fact, Is preperty but a fietion, without the beneficial use of it? In many cases, Inded, the in- come or annuity is the property ltselt.’ We think there is nothing in the Hylton case in conflict with the foregoing. The case Is badly report What was decided in the Hylton case was that a tax on carriages was an excise, and_therefore an indirect tax. The contention of Mr. Madison in the house was nly so far disturbed by it that the court sifid it where he himself would have held it unconstitutional, and he subsequently, as president, approved a similar act. The contention of Mr. Hamilton in the Federalist was not disturbed by it in the least. In our ment the construction given to the con- Stitution by the authors of the Faderalist (tha five numbers contributed by Chief Justics Jay related to the danger from foreign fo and influence and to the freaty making power) should not and cannot be disregarded The opinion next took up the argument that a tax on property is not a direct tax within the meanin of the constituticn and on this point it says: ‘““The constitution prohibits any direct tax unless in proportion to num- bers as ascertained by the census; and in the light of the circumstances to which we have referred is It not an evasion of that prohibi- tion to hold that a general unapportioned tax imposed upon all property awners as a body for or in respect of their property is not direct, fn the meanfng of the consiitution, be- cause confined to the income therefro WOULD DEFEAT THE CONSTITUTION. “Whatever the speculative views of politi- cal ecomomists or revenue reformers may be, can it be properly held that the constitution, taken in its plain and obvious sense and with due regard to the circumstances attending the formation of the government, authorizes a general unapportioned tax on the products of the farm and the rents of real estate, al- though imposed merely because of ownership and with no possible means of escape from payment as belonging to a totally different class from that which Ineludes the property from whence the income proceeds? “There can be but one answer, unless the constitutional restraint is to be treated as utterly illusory and futile, and the object of its framers defeated. We find it impossible to hold that a fundamental requisition, deemed | 50 important as to be enforced by two pr ! visions, one afirmative and one negative, can | b refined away by forced distinctions, b. tween that which gives value to the property | &nd the property itself. Nor can we perceive any ground why the same recasoning does | not apply to capital in personalty for the purpose of income or ordinarily yleling in come, and to the Income therefrom. All the real estate of the country and all its invested personal property are open to the direct op:ration of the taxing power of an appor- tionment made according to the constitution The constitution does not say that no direct tax shall be laid by apportionment on any other property than land, on the contrary it torbids all unapportioned direct taxes; and we know of no warrant for excepiing per- sonal property from the exercise of the pawer or any reason why a reapportioned tax cannot be laid and assessed, as Mr. Gallatin aald in bis report when secretary of {he treasury in 1812, ‘upon the same objects of taxation on which the direct taxes levied under the authority of the state are laid | and assessed.' ™ | “Nor are we kmpressed with the argument that, because in the four instances in which | was | tax the power of direct tagation has been ex:refred congress did not see fit, for reasons of ex pediency, to levy a tax upon persomalty, mu’ amounts to such a practical construction of the constitution that the power did not exist | that ws must regard ourselves bound by it. | We should regret to be compelled to hold the | powers of the general government thus. re. stricted and certainly cannot acesde to the Idea that the constitution has become weak ened by a particular course of Inaction un- der it WHAT THE INCOME TAX IS. “The stress of the argument Is thrown, | however, on the assertion that an incomo tax is not a property tax at all; that it is not a real estate tax, mor a crop tax, nor a bond tax; that it Is an assessment upon the tax- payer on account of his money spend- ing power as shown by his revenue for the year preceding the assessment; that rents received for the crops harvested, intercst collected, have lost all connection with their origin, and although once mot taxable, have become transmuted in their form into taxa- ble subject matter; in other words that in- come Is taxable irrespeetive of the source from whence it Is derived.” “Phis was the view entertained by Mr. Pitt and was expressed in his celebrated speech on introducing his income tax law of 1799, and he did not hesitate to carry it to its logical conclusion. ‘The English loan acts provided the public dividends should be paid free of all taxes and charges whatsoever,’ but Mr. Pitt pointedly contended that ‘the dividends for the purposes of the Income tax were to be considered stmply in relation to the reciplent as so much income, and that the holder had no reason to complain.’ And this, sald Mr. Gladstone, fifty-five years after, was the national construction of the pledge. The dissenting justices proceed in effect upon this ground in Weston against Charleston, but the court rejected it. That was a state tax, it is true, but the states have power to lay income taxes, and if the source Is not open to inquiry constitutional safeguards might be easily eluded. “We have unanimously held in this that so far as this law operates on the re ceipts from municipal bonds it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the power of the states and their instrumentalities to borrow money, and conscquently repugnant to the constitution. But if, as contended, the Interest when received las become merely money In the recipient’s pocket and taxable as such without reference to the source from whence it came, the question is immaterial whether it should have been originally taxed at all. This was admitted by the attorney general, and it inevitably follows that if the revenue derived from municipal bonds cannot be taxed hecause of the source, cannot the same rule be applied to revenue from any other source not subject to a tax and the lack of power to levy any but an appor- tioned tax on real and personal property usu ally as to the revenue theretrom CONSIDERED DIRECT IN ENGLAND. “Admitting that this act taxes income of properly irrespective of its source, still we cannot see that such a tax is necessarily an indirect tax in the meaning of the constitu- tion. In England we do not understand an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's history of taxs and taxation In England, admiite be the leading authority, the evoluticn of taxes is given, and an income tax js invari- ably classtfied as a direct tax. That view is concurred In by the cyclopediaists and lex- icographers and political economists, and gen- erally by the classification of European gov ernments wherever an income tax obtains. “In Attorney General against the Queen Insurance company, which arose in Brit North America In 1867, which provided that the provincial legislatures could only raise revenue for provineial purposes within each provines (in addition to licenses) by direct tax ation, an act of the Quebec legislature laying a stamp duty came under consideration, and the judicial committec of the privy council speaking by Jessel, M. R., held that the words ‘direct taxation' had cither a technical g or a general meaning, or, as it is sometimes called, a popular mean'ng. One or the other meanings the words must have, and in trying to find out their meantng we must have recourse to the usual sources of information, whether regarded as (echnical words, words of art, or words used in pop- ular language, and considering their meaning either ‘as words in the sense of political economy or as words used in jurisprudence in the courts of law,' it was concluded that stamps were not included in the category of direct taxation, and that the impositlon was not warranted. In Bank of Toronto against Lambe, the privy council, discussing the same subject, in dealing with the argument much pressed at the bar, that a tax to be strictly direct must be general, said they had no hesitation in rejecting it for legal purpos It would deny the character of a direct tax to the income tax of this country, which is always spoken of as such and is generally looked on as a dircct tax of the most ob- vious kind, and it would run counter to the common unflerstanding of men on this sub Ject, which is ono main clue to the meaning of the legislature, After this review of cases and considera- tion of arguments of counsel the court as it approached its couciusion set up the following argument f it were a fact that there had been no income tax law such as this at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, it would not be of controlling importance. A dircet tax cannot be taken out of the con- stitutional rule because the particular tax did not exist at the time the rule was pre- scribed. As Chief Justice Marshall said in the Dartmouth college It Is not enough to lar case was not in th vention when the article was framed, nor of the American people when it ' was adopted. It is necessary to go further and to say that had this particular case been suggested the language would have been so varled as to exclude it, or it would have been made a special exception. The case being within the words of the rule must be within its operation likewise, uniess there be something in the literal construction obviously absurd or mischievous or repi nant to the general spirit of the instrum as to justify those who expound the con tution” in making it an exception. Wheaton, 518-644). A SUGGESTION TO CONGRESS, “Being direct, and therefore to be laid by apportionment, 'is there any real difficulty in doing s0? 'Cannot congress, If the neces- sity exists of raising thirty, forty, or any other number of millions of dollars for the support of the government, in addition to the revenue from duties, imposts and excises, apportion the quota of each state upon the basis of census, and thus advise it of the payment which must be made, and proceed to assess that amount on all the real and personal property, or the income of all per- sons in the state, and collect the same if the state does not in the meantime assume and pay its quota and collect the amount ac- cording to Its own system and in its own way? Inconvenlences might possibly attend the levy of an Income tax, but that K Is apportionable Is hardly denied, although it is asserted It would operate so unequally as to be undesirable. “In the disposition of the inquiry whether a general unapportioned tax on the Income of real and personal property can be sustained | under the constitution, it is apparent that the suggestion that the result of compliance with the fundamental law wonld lead to the ndonment of that method of taxation al- er, because of inequalities alleged to necessarily accompany its pursuit could not be allowed to Influence the conclusion, but the suggestion of this _naturally in- vites attention to the contention of appellant’s counsel, that the want of uni- formity and equality in this act is such as to invalidate it. ~ And figures drawn from the census are glyen, showing that enormous a:- sets of mutual Insurance companies, of build- ing asoclations, of mutual savings banks, and lurge productive property of ecclesiustlcal or- ganizations are exempted, and that the ex- emptions reach so many hundred millions that the rate of taxation would perhaps have been reduced one-balf if they had not been made ““We are not deallng with the act from that point of view, but assum'ng the date to be substantially reliable, if the sum desired to be raised had been apportioned, it may be doubted whether any state which paid its | | quota and collected the amcunt by its own methods would or could undes iis ¢ uticn have allowed a large part of the property alluded to to escape taxation. 1f 50, a be mearure of equality would have been at- tained than would otherwise be possible, since according to the arguments for the govern- ment the rule of equality is not preserib:d | by the constitution as to federal taxation and the observance of such a rule as inherent in all just taxation is purely a matter of legis- lative discretion. “‘Blaborate argument is made as to the efficacy and merits of an income tax in gen- ase that this particu- mind of the con- nst eral, as on the one hand equal and just and | | on the other elastic and certain; not that it | 1s not open to abuse by such deductions and | exemptions as might make taxation under it | 50 wanting in uniformity and equality as in [ portionment is c | direct tax in the meaning of the constitution !luhnunce to amount to deprivation of prop- erty without (ue process of law; not that it is not open fraud, and evasion, and in- quisitorial in its methods, but because it Is pre-eminently a tax upon the rich and en- ables the burden of taxes on consumption and of dutiesdn; imports to be sensibly di minished, ande jtyis sald that the United States, ‘as th#'répfresentative of an indivisa | ble nationality, as a politieal sovereign, equal in authority to any other on the face of the globe, adequatfe all emergencies, foreign or domestic, and having at its command for offanse and defense and for all governmental purposes all fhe resources of the natlons,' would be ‘but a maimed and crippled eres- tion after all finfess it posses Iay a tax on thesthcome of real and personal property throughout the United States with out apportionment.’ TAXATION THROUGH APPORTIONMENT. “The power to tax real and pcrsonal prop erty and the income from both through ap nceded; that such a tax Is a has not be:in nnot be denjed successfully id in d:nie our judgment and yet we are thus invited to tate In the enforce- ment of the mandate of the constitution which prohibits congress from laying a dircct tax on the revenue from property cf the citl zen without regard to state lines, and in such mianner that the states cinnot Intervene by payment in regulation of their own re. sources, lest a government of a delegated power should be found to be not less pow: ful, but less absolute, than the §vagination of its advocates had supposed. We are not here concern:d with the question whether an Income tax is not desirable, or whether or not such o tix would enable the government to diminish taxes on consumption and dutles on imports and enter upon what may be believed to b: a reform of its fiscal and com mercial system. Questions cf that character belong to the controversies of political parties and cannot be settled by judicial decision In such cases our province is to determine whether this income tax on (he revenue from property does or does not belong to the clas of direct taxes; If it does it is, being unap- portioned, in violation of the constitution, and we must o declare. “Differences have often occurred in this court; differences exist now, but there ha never been a time in its history when there has been a difference of opinion to its duty to announc: its deliberate conclusions, unaffected by considerations not pertaining to the case in hand. If it be true that the conetitation should have been so framed that a tax of this kind could be had, the instru ment defines the way for its amendment. In no part of it was greater sagacity display:d, except that no state, without its consent, cin be deprived of its equal suffrage in the sen- ate. “The ultimate sovereignty may be thus called Into play by a slow and deliberate process, which gives time for mere hypothesis to exhaust itself and the sober second thought of every part of the country to assert itsif We have considered the act in no resy of the tax on income derived from real tate and from invested personal property and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gaing or profits from business priv- tleges or employments, in view of the in- stances in which tax’ on business, privileges or employments, has assumed the gilse of an income tax and been sustained as such GENERAL TARIFF ACT STANDS “Being of opinion that so much of the sections of this 1aw as lays a tax on income derived from reak and personal property is invalid, we are breught to the question of the effect of that conclusion upon these sec tions as a whele. It is elemantary that the same statute may be in part constitutional and if the pams are wholly independent each other that which is constitutional may and, while that which is unconstitutional will be rejected.. And n the case before us there is no questian as to the valic this act, except sections 27 to 37, inclusive, which relate to the subject which has been under discussion. afl as to them we think the rule laid dgwn by Chief Justice Shaw in arren against. Charleston is applicable, that if the different parfs ‘are so mutually con- nected with and: dependent upon each oth-r as conditions, « eonsiderations or compensa tions for eachiothed, as to warrant a bellef that the legl#taturf intended them as a whale, and that if.all could not be carricd into effect the Jegislature would, not, pa e, residuc imdepeudently, and some par are unconstitutional, all the provisions whicl are thus dependent, conditional or connccted must fall with them.’ “Or as the point is put by Mr. Justice Mathews in Poindexter against Greenhow “It is undoubtedly true that there may be cases where one part of a statute may b enforced as constitutional and another may be declared inoperative and void because unconstitutional, but these are cases wher the parts ) distinctly separate that each can stand alone and where the court is able to see and to declare that the in- tention of the legisiature was that the part pronounc alid” should be enforcable, ev n though the other parts should fail. To hold otherwise would b2 to subatitufe for the ed by ‘the legislature one the have bpen willing by itselt to enact “And again as stated by Judge in Sprague against Thompsom, wher it was urged that certain illegal exceptions in a section of a statute might be disre garded, but that the rest could stand, ‘the nsuperable difficulty with the application of that principle of construction to the present instance is that by rejecting the exceptions intended by tho legislature of Georgla, the is made to enact what confessedly the legislature never meant. It confers upon the statute a positive operation beyond the legis lative Intent, and beyond what anyone @an it would have enacted in view of the ality of the exceptions.’ According to the census, the true valu- ation of real and personal property in the United States in 1830 was $65,037,091,191, of which real estate and improvements thereon made up $39,544,544.333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000, but even with such deductions it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation em- bodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the Income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, Investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the larger part of the anticipated revenue would eliminated, and this would leave the bur of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments or vocations, and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean tc say that an act, laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be con- sidered as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, it any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated ex- cept in connection with the taxation con sidered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that seetlons 27 to 47, Inclusive, of the act which bgcame a law without the sig- nature of the presfddnt on August 28, 1594, are wholly inoperative and void.” “1. We adbere to the opinion already an- nounced that taxes on real estate being in- disputably direcD taxes, taxes on the rents on income of real estate are equally direct taxes. 2. We are of opinion that taxes on j sonal property or on,the income of personal property are likatiSe direct taxes “3. The tax Imposed by sections 27 to 37, In clusive, of the act of 1894, o far as it falls on the income of real estate and on persodal property, being a direct tax within the mean- ing of the constitution and thersfore uneon- stitational and ygid~pecauze not apportioned according to represenfation, all those sections constituting one entire scheme of tayation are necessarily inyalid. “The decrees BeAAilbefore entered in court will be vacated he decrees below will be reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to grant the relief prayed.” Sectior to 37.0f the tariff act of 1894 referred to in the conclusions of the court in | the opinions are all the section: of the act relating to the income tax o that the tire income tax law lared vold s ally. never the same eminen th en is @ \fic- | JUSTICE HARLAN'S DIS Justice Harlan delivered the senting opinion. After against the position of th taxes on derived from rents direct tax, sald: “In my opinio judgment strikes at the very foundations of national authority, in that it denies tg the general government & power which is or may at some time In a grea rgancy such as that of war, beeome 1 to th existence and preservation ¢ union, 1t tends to re-establish that condition ef help lessness in which congress found iise!f dyring the period of the articlss of eonfed :ration SENT. principal dis brict argument court, con:truing | the power to | | contribu | mix te when it was vithout power by laws operat ing direetly wpon Individuals, t collect through its own agents, olent to pay the debts and defr penses of government and was dependent In | all such matters upon the good states and promptness in making sitions made upon them by congress. practical operation this decision from national taxation not only derived from real estate, but th property of the whole country—per erty, bonds, stocks, investments ¢ and the Income that may such property. that under the decision of the cour ncomes cannot be taxed only by ment among the state on the basi population. No such apportionme sibly be made without dolng wicked injustice to the many, for of the favored few in particular mpt upon the part of cor n taxation of Incomes among upon the basis of their population properly ought to, arc such among the free men of America th never bo repeated. The majority opinjon that without an amendme tion such incomes can to the support government, If this new theory stitution, as I belleve it to be—f departure from the way marked fathers, the American people their constitution i res practicall never ot cannot PURPOSE OF CONGRESS DEFEATED. “The judgment just rendered d purpose of congress by revenue not less than $30,000,000, a $60,000,000, expected to be raised We know from the offic st both houses congress would not have been reduced t was by the Wilson bill if the country had the benefit lerived from a tax on i be safely done. In every two houses of must be a part of any scheme for comes to of bl tion of taxation and for ralsing reven the er support of the government; ain exceptions) incomes ari every kind of property and from and calling should bear some of t of taxation imposed is justified in believing that congi not have provided an income tax not incksde a tax on incomes froj tate, we are more justified in bel the Wilson act would not have law at all, without provision hein, it in the income tax. If, theref income tax sections of the fall because some of them are in not the judgment this day rend grovnd for the contention that the entire act from falls when the con strikes the income tax provisions, without act would never have been passe ““But the court takes care to re is no question as to the vali on bill, except those sections vide for a tax on i Thus is ated for the and m ) the government. “The practical, if not the direc the decision today is to give to e f property a favoritism and s inconsistent with the fundam ciples of our social organization; them with power and influence th ous to that portion of the people rests the larger part of the burd government, and who ousht not d to the dominion of aggrega iy more than the property of t should be at the mercy of law CONTRADICTORY PROPOSI J ica White stated vi From first to last, he said, the 4he majority s but a series of tory propositions, one eating up a 12 the other. Speaking of the gr which he dissented, Mr. White ress upon the Hylton case, and wed the legal points he had m decision dissenting. In conel tice White's opinion said: “The i the conclusion poin g it. It takes invested tinto the constitution as a f cted class of | rty, wh ceupation of th minister, professor, the lawyer, the thor, the merchant f human activity upon which the f a people must depend subject action without apportionment. “The absolute inequality and i taxing by reference to population out regard to the amount of the w is 50 manifest that to admit tax and limit to this mode denles ho power itself, since it im; striction which renders its tically impossible."” A fow extemporaneous remarics by Justice White after the read written opinion. He spoke of the 1 blow struck at the American sald that the power of le ng an now could only be exer 1 wit tic that no executive body wou tompt to exercise it, for such would bring forward A bloody v HAS BEEN DEFINED T e Brown in his dissent i what is and what is not a vore now for the first time should entertain a grave doubt view of the definition of a direct by the courts and writers on politie luring the present ¢ ury held to apply not only burden of which is borne b and ultimately by the person regards it as very clear that quiring direct taxation to be the population, has no appl which are not’ capable to ap cording to population. 1t could not somes. support W wealth Ist it the nventc P Jus quest pay the supposed that the constitution could have con templated a practical lnhibition of of congress to tax In some way property within the jurisdiction of government for the purpose of revenue. tice Brown said in conclusion for the ¢ “The decision the surrender of moneyed class. “While I have no doubt that find some means of surmountin crisig, my fear i n T e S frustrate its will and paralyze i liope it may not prove the firs the submergence of the liberties ¢ ple in a sordid d Chief Justice F court would a of Jun day. involves nothing the taxing gt ller announced urn for the term e, and thit it would also sit Local Opinions on the Deeision. his hands enthu- Euclid Martin clapped siastically at the Commercial club was enjoying lunch, and after sur fragments of a plece of spring front of him, shouted: “I am gla Dudley Smith—I did not think measure when passed on account NLY pure used in R %fitfiafi.’i&"’\ LRIEREFTERIE This results from t of the constitu- be the is justified by the fundamental law, too soon amend king out that but for the belief | the law was a ! congres od 1t the court Wilson aet must advantage that to the error of vored and pro and all the various forms the exercise an pre whether in it ought not to be n income tax immediately apportioned to ation ortionment ac- nstituticn will not be inspired by a narrow and technical construction which shall limit the necessary powers of congress power e moment potism of wealth.” 0 lay and taxes suffi- ay the ex- provisions and the W. A. L. Gibbo cause it will tend to upset the fisca of the government and likewise generally. A tax that makes sm upon the citizen's property in exces In its | needs is a just tax and every loyal withdraws am glad of will of the the requi- | government 1 am very happy It was just and whole bill after Hicks w out to D George ) knoc personal | aal prop- | of all kinds 8 ller- the the fact t that such apportion like. | “Dan Farren, | this would 1 Jr.—1 knew all the ti he result. It will be s simply of | ing news to all manufacturers nt can pos- | Judge Ferguson—I would profer to monstrous | cused from expressing any opinion the benéfit | faw, as I have really never glven Any | thought aside from the newspaper a s to appor- Henry M. Morrow—This later dec the states | ¢ t and gsatisfactory in many would, and | which the former decision was indignation | country will be better off without an it it would | tax than with one, o unjust as the decision made it Peter B. Blsnssor—I unconstitutional, Captain Ijams—Without going 1 merits of the right or wrong: me tax in the present | treasury injure the revenues I B my part to have been in a position canld pay an income tax. The law been popular with the moneyed el < corporations should be made to pa lofonta the | ghare the same as the rest and the alr 'l possibly | 1AW was to bring them in to pay w 1 trom i ‘lh»llr Just share. The al reports | 28 well have wiped taxation | first place as to have kill:d it one-ha Sherift Drexel—My opinion has be the dceision go thus way. I supp preme court had gocd reasons for § Charles Conoyer—The decision well enough for I never thought t law was quite right I belie in an tax, but I think that the per cent of hould be strictly pro rata with refe the incomes, and, instead of mak exemption $3,000, $1,000, Councilman Howell—I cision will meet with the jority of the democratic people generally. AR A teaspoonful of Price’s Baking does the same perfect work today it or last month, or iast year. LEADERS FOR Jectd ly am & th made to | national of the con- | ¢ £ this ne out by the | condition supreme cour the extent | a revenue | se that could | way the that the that ing very hi (with from | trade | burdens | knows or ress would which did m real es- feving that become a g made for ore, all the think that approval o party and valid, does ed furrish — Women Choose Directors ¢f I for the Ensuing Year. This week most of the different ments of the Woman's club hold th meeting for the year., At these meet election of leaders for the ensuing ye place. The it all ot which the d. state that dity of the which pro something na “Moral talsat ot led to take up the study of tain kinds work. Mrs. Andrews this department, was ele 1 with Mrs. Axtell as ant. Mrs. Robbins is the new sscreta The Parllamentary P tice departm immediately A motion to cha name of th ment to that of to be sub- [ mentary study was lost Mrs. Her ted wealth [ the able leader, was re- ted by a he country [tion. Mrs. Dewey Is the new assistant and Mrs, Patrick sccretary. A quotati 5 A Denver paper was read, in women of the Woman's club of Denv f | that a given number of the public scl opened during the summer months for fraining, music and drawing. The wo this department bemoaned the fact t idea did not originate club. They think the sh for the poorer of eat ma of these children have n to play in, and therefore spend most time on the street buillings of our ¢ summe: text hooks hand anl eye train structions g | music and drawing, there would be mense amount of good done. 'l llscussion was *““What Most \l-ull oS ¢ bility of the Republic?* Some of the thought “monopolies. One considerable spirit, that if croaking about the fall of more work. for its stability, in any immediate danger. le ital prin to invest tis peril fpon whom ens of the less."” TION ws briefly. opinion contradie nd destroy ounds upon laid great re-enunci- ade in hi usion, Jus njustice ad reads long vacation y 1f some of the were opened thrown aside a and Y leaves the dactor, th v, the au prosy to the rity ox there w the repnb it would Another co njustice of and with- ealth taxed power t wbstantially po3es a re prac- we had to contend with, suffragist, and thinks themselves to be swayel by impulse of princi ot. educate them so they will vote for ri gardless of party. “Want of patriotism’ in the republic. The lessons taught Grand Army of the Republic are inv. They are doing more toward Inculcat of couatry than any other force now a She is not a were made ing of his decision as people and income tax snch injus 1 dare at- attempt ! ner in which the women came into t meetings and went out. “They wait n the orler of their going,” but go wh spirit moves them, regardless of the fo any one is talking or reading. The mentary Practice department hope “public opinion” will be so strong at they will go and come *“on time." he léngth of time to be given to p rapers was touched upon, the general ment ng in favor of more pap: s, seven minutes being thos be a good limit. The club room is room to spesk in, and no woman shc asked to read before the audience unl has voice enough to fill the room it ORE! id: 1If the direct tax sented, he tax given al cconomy the | ing it use e re- to taxes have been | poorly sald. -~ has a purer boquet than Imperial Champagne. It of the grapes fermented. ——— AMUSE MENTS. No wine Extra Dry pure juice the power all taxable the federal a national Respect The opening night of the “C Mines" at the E evident that the play will be a great with the play going public. was greeted with repeated rounds of ay the telling situations and startling in fairly carrying the audience. The author, Mr. W. S. Nead, toc title role, and proved to be not only cesstul playwright but an actor of n rder as well. The cast is a strong o cluding Mrs. Nead, who represente witeh admirably; Miss Chandos, wha than the leas to ngress will he present of up to arm. I tep toward f the peo. rise ts that the on the 3d next Mon- | Miss Nations, the Edwards, the mos! hearted mothers broken-hearted of Mr. Victor Constanc tremens ever seen in the west; Mr. well, who played the villain to perf-etic Clawson, a very fine Yaukee Wrothe, the funniest of Irish comedia Plair and Mr. Harpur, who eflicient service, Mr. Edwards, director, is a thor certain | and did much toward the sut where he veying the chicken in d of it.” it a wise of s of th LRI grape cream of tartar is oyal Baking Powder. Un- or alkali in the food. g like other powders, Royal leaves no acid ORI BRI R R RS R I Geneva Griddle One and ore-half plut fuls sugar, on and one-half tea:pcoafuls Royal B ler, two tablespconfuls butt early onme-half pint m light cream butter a eggs, one at a time. flour. powder together; add to butter Ik and egg whites whipped (o ether in'o & #mooth batter small cakes; as soon s brown brown the otler side. Have butte tin; fast as browned, lay then spread raspberry jam over them; more, which lay on others already peat this until you b bake another batch, which you us them. Sift rugar plentifully o pince in a moderate oven to finish Cikes. flour, fi ad ful aking on © used jam twice, Graham Crackers, best Graham fl alt teasp Royal Baking tablespoonfuls butter, little m balf pint milk Sift together Gra yelk #alt, and powder; rub in lard cold, #alt, and | mix into smooth, consistent dough. ete., the board, turn out dough, knead dry froth; | minutes. Roll with rolling pin (o th Bake in ' cf one-quarter ined; cut with knife into turn, and | envelope-shaped crackers. Bake in red baking | hot oven with eare (as they burn read| it, and | minutes. Handle th ke | cold store for use. 4 n - then e 1o cover ver them, cooking ur table- | One quart ir, on ful Powd th: an aspoontul - Kice Flour ¢ rackers P eed as dirceted for Corn Starch | ers; substitute rice flour for starch. regrot to hear it, all its be dertved from | ridiculous revision in regard to rents and the not of an the decision will cortainly seriously ut the whole law 1 am sorry 1 would bring it down CLUB WORK partments Plilosophy department” ogy for next year, and aleo review this in the Omaba Woman's ehildr subject fo woman said with that corruption in politics was the grea s long as women allow , they are better without the bal- Commence with the boys and girls and There was quite a discussion over the man thing well said is better than a good thing mpire last evening made it Its produetion a most charming and attractive little heroine funniest of old maide; gave the finest representation of the delirium study; rendered v 1ghly good all round man SRS I I S S 3 S an add arefuly while hot; sequel be- | affairs business lovy s of his citizen should not object to paying the same toward all Incomes [ maintaining the hear It. roper to recent me that gratify ) be ex on the it any ccount Ision s phases, The Incom former at it is nto the in- of the Hous>—I should have been glad for where I has not 83, Th y their n of the the rest t might in the It en that to soe the su opinon. iits me hat th income the tax ing the to the de- fa ma-| of the Powder did yes depart eir last ngs the ar takes met psychol ader of assist ry. ent met nge the parlia derson, cclama- Teade n from ch the r asked 10018 e manual ymen of bat the is too en. A o yards of their school for the nd the iven in an im- he Sta- women as less blic and not be ntended at force woman instead ght, re- " is felt by the aluable. ng love t work he club ot upon hen the act that Parlia s that xt year reparel 1 sent! ors and ught to a hard ould be ess she A poor Cook's is the arraboo favorite pplause, ncidents ok the a suc- o mean one, in- d the o made Miss broken ce, who Bord- n; Mr. Mr. Mr. ry musical ns; play - sugar K lour 1 K o small rather Iy) ten when Crack- HOW THEY CAUGHT CASSIDAY Omaha Police Walt While A Potty Thiet Does the MeGarrigio Ae There ence, yesterday says some one, saytg was ladl |ty coppers ot th when no wisdom like and th 1 out fn a b police fol they started Lew Cassiday. Lew Ca | potice home pro reputation. | tim ago a as a purchased iday {8 pretty well known petty thief. H t and has Moreover, he is certain small she several pairs worked th experl- of the to two before arrest o truth iy dose roe out day to to the striotly te a Some e Is a up shrewd, > dealer In the of shoes and | exbibited them in a box in the front of his One by struck aquictly Several the appropri day day Lew appe passed ance of two after Cassiday and remarked that he or by, and, being the footwear, three pairs. entered the had several rs of shoes he wished to dispose of at a bargain. shoes, saw and pur th | suddenty { bought several The Sergeant officers teenth there. | pany lis the station request to | went into and He comfortably and iday ing thought room was e Cassiday w nerves, their need is en o salt can r Hood’s Tonn 1. it M. 1 The that hased shoe dealer, days befors answering Cassiday's description examining the shoes in the box. He immediately swore out a warrant for Cassiday's arrest warrant King and Offic went was perfectly them, hands before the behind him, Fewritte shoe they them dealer were in After usi ones tlso re had fdenticat him. He he was placed in r Ch s h ts wil asked perm he visited This seemed a roa officers, and bedroom, shu two officers ¢ to Cassida Nicholas st but the scated themselves in best chalrs in t waited cion entered the mind o > front rc Suddenly a m Ia on taking a bath his face and hands. he opened the bedr pty, has not yet c nourishment. hed and puriti and all simily Sarsapari noss, head, ally's and revised, any of Mamie Gilroy First floor § that the bon but the windc suro all Hve examined the good condition Cassiday left looking at the shoes again, reached the con the stolen from on that he had had been membored that noticed a man n the hands ot amberlain. The ome at Seven- and found him ling to accom- Issfon to wash ton at ble_enough while Cassidny tting the door contentedly and wo of the y walted sized sus of them that instead of only Struck by the oom door. The W Was open. » back and T | probably now washing his hands and face at €ome other point in the universe. Tired all the Time Not because of your daily Tabor, but be canse your blood is failing to give the muscles and or proper us of the body What you ed blood, and the medicine for this is Hood's Sarsapa- which is the one great blood purl I's Sarsaparilla cures scerofula, rhenm Dbeeause it makes the blood pure. take Hood' confidence that it will do you good. Hood’s Sar:aparilla Is the Only True Biood Purifier ar afllictions, You la with full sminently in the public eye today. Pil AMUSEMENT BOYD'S MON. and TUE;., Return of Everybody's Favorite, PETER F. DAILEY The Funniest Man of Our Times, In A COUNTRY SPORT 20th contury farce Two Muht-a More, MAY 20-21 comedy; rescated by the tists, Including Lewis, Androw & baleony 800 medy, ONE Including J s Pixley Tarr, V La day morning Je and 7 “THE Prices—10c, BOY P’S CANARY & LEDERER'S New York Casino Chicago Opera House oy mour and Production Intact. ce, Dr Vaudey E ENTERTAIN PEOPLE-11 Henshaw, € Tloss, Max nona Jarbead, Lu Petite - Adeliide, hn E. ale of seats Will open at 9 o'c Lirst floor, $1 and TONIGHT, NEAD'S NEW CARRABOO ¢ and 30c. WED. & THUR MAY 22 & 23 THE PASSING SHOW ille, Ballet and Grand and Comic Opera all rolled into HL 110 MENT. o ). A, Schill von' Mitze v Daly, Minnie’ Mij ock Tuese $L50; balcony, EMPIRE THEATRE PLAY, MINES. of An you CHICAGO, ST. PAUL. BOSTON. DESMOINES. KaxsAs CITY, HARTFORD, As arule this not always It costs no stylish, ment than an ill-fitting one, have spend; Trousers (new low tariff price). WASHINGTON. the well-dre city are well d more to if you know how, self in our hands, to 50 $15 perfect-fitting ssed men aring w Nicoll's made-to-order gar- ments. extravagant outlay o f money is not necessary ; ex- pensively dressed men are ressed, make a gar- Nicoll knows how-—put your- whether to we will do the rest, to order, Garments expressed. Samples malled. 207 S. I5TH STREET. licoll TAILOR New YoR, SANFRANCISCO. PORTLAND, ORE. $4 to f14 sT. Louis, OnaiA. Desvea, PITTSBURG, INDIANAPOLIS, MINNEAPOLIS, LOSANGELESy