Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/356

MR. JUSTICE BROWN ing those corporations against the arm of a national revenue. And if the proposed the law and the process of the court. The tax were such that in its nature it could not result of the decision was seen a few days ago be apportioned according to population, it follows that it could not have when the counsel for various paper com naturally been considered a direct tax within the panies appeared in court, withdrew the meaning of the clause in question." answers, and permitted a decree of disso One of Justice Brown's leading opinions lution to be entered against the central was delivered in Holden ~c. Hardy, 169 U. S. company. 366, involving the constitutionality of the The first Income Tax Case was decided Utah statute limiting the period of em in April 2, 1895, 157 U. S. 429, the chief ployment of working men in underground justice writing the opinion. It held the mines to eight hours per day, except in tax on lands or income from real estate to be a direct tax, and the tax on income de cases of emergency where life or property rived from interest on municipal bonds to were in imminent danger. The statute was be a tax upon the power of the state and sustained as a valid police regulation on its instrumentalities to borrow money and the ground that work in underground consequently repugnant to the Constitution mines involved greater risk to health and of the United States, and that in these re life of the community than the ordinary spects the provisions of the act of 1894 were classes of employment. In the recent case unconstitutional. As to the other questions of Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, in the court was equally divided, Justice Jack which the Xew York statute limiting the son, by reason of illness not having been able hours of a baker to ten declared unconsti to hear argument in any case after October tutional as an interference with liberty of 23, 1894. Justice Field wrote a concurring contract, Holden v. Hardy was not over opinion; Justices White and Harlan dis ruled but distinguished on the ground that sented; Justice Brown at that time con a baker's employment did not involve those curred with the chief justice and the ma special risks to the general health of the jority of the court, but wrote no opinion. persons employed as existed in the case of On reargument the court held, 158 U. S. underground mining. Justice Brown united 60 1, that the tax on personal property and in the majority opinion which was written the income of personal property were like by Justice Peckham, who with Justice wise direct taxes and that the entire scheme Brewer had dissented in Holden v. Hardy. of the income tax provisions of the act was In the Insular Cases there were several void because not apportioned according to opinions delivered. In the first — De Lima representation. The chief justice again de v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. i, Justice Brown de livered the opinion of the court; Justice livered the opinion of the court. The case Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion and involved the constitutional right of the Justice Brown also dissented and his view United States to collect tariff duties under the Dingley Act on goods brought from in this regard was as follows : Porto Rico after the ratification of the "I regard it as very clear that the clause treaty of peace with Spain. The majority requiring direct taxes to be apportioned to the population has no application to taxes of the court concurred in the opinion, which are not capable of apportionment which was to the effect that after the rati according to population. It cannot be sup fication of the treaty, Porto Rico was not a posed that the convention could have con foreign country within the meaning of the templated a practical inhibition upon the power of Congress to tax in some way all tariff laws, and that the duties were ille taxable property within the jurisdiction of gally exacted. the Federal Goverment, for the purposes of In the first Dooley Case, 182 U. S. 222,