FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   >>  
party with Republican virus had poisoned its blood. Shortly after the last Democratic Congress--the last for many years--the Supreme Court undid one of the few successful achievements of this party when it was in power. The Tariff Bill contained a section imposing a tax of two per cent on incomes in excess of $4000. A case was framed attacking the constitutionality of the tax,* the parties on both sides aiming to defeat the law and framing the issues with that purpose in view. On April 8, 1895, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment which showed that the Court was evenly divided on some points. A rehearing was ordered and a final decision was rendered on the 20th of May. By a vote of five to four it was held that the income tax was a direct tax, that as such it could be imposed only by apportionment among the States according to population, and that as the law made no such provision the tax was therefore invalid. This reversed the previous position of the Court** that an income tax was not a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, but that it was an excise. This decision was the subject of much bitter comment which, however, scarcely exceeded in severity the expressions used by members of the Supreme Court who filed dissenting opinions. Justice White was of the opinion that the effect of this judgment was "to overthrow a long and consistent line of decisions and to deny to the legislative department of the Government the possession of a power conceded to it by universal consensus for one hundred years." Justice Harlan declared that it struck "at the very foundation of national authority" and that it gave "to certain kinds of property a position of favoritism and advantage inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our social organization." Justice Brown hoped that "it may not prove the first step towards the submergence of the liberties of the people in a sordid despotism of wealth." Justice Jackson said it was "such as no free and enlightened people can ever possibly sanction or approve." The comments of law journals were also severe, and on the whole, the criticism of legal experts was more outspoken than that of the politicians. * Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429. * * Springer vs. United States, 102 U.S. 586. Public distrust of legislative procedure in the United States is so great that powers of judicial interference are valued to a degree not usual in
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   >>  



Top keywords:
Justice
 

Supreme

 

States

 

judgment

 

rendered

 
position
 
income
 

legislative

 
direct
 

decision


people

 

United

 
inconsistent
 

organization

 
social
 

principles

 
fundamental
 
foundation
 

conceded

 

possession


universal

 

consensus

 

hundred

 

Government

 

department

 

consistent

 

decisions

 

Harlan

 

declared

 

property


favoritism

 
authority
 

national

 

struck

 

advantage

 
sanction
 

Springer

 
Company
 

politicians

 
Pollock

Farmers
 

Public

 
distrust
 
interference
 

valued

 

degree

 
judicial
 

powers

 
procedure
 

outspoken