THE OMAHA DAILY KEE : TUESDAY , MAY 21 , 1895.
by the acceptance or their logical consequences -
sequences ,
"The very nature of the constitution , ai
observed by Chief Justice Marshall In ono
of his Breatcst Judgments , requires 'that only
Its great outlines should be marked , Its Im
portant objects designated , and the minor
ingredients which compose tho'o objects be
deducted from the nature of the objects them-
Helves. ' In considering this question then ,
wo tnuat never forget tint It 1 * a constitu
tion that wo are expounding.
"As heretofore stated the constitution di
vided federal taxation Into two great classes ,
the cla * of direct taxes and the class of
duties , Imposts and excises , and prescribed
two rules which qualified the grant of power
ns to each class. The power to lay direct
taxes apportioned among the several statei
In proportion to their representation In the
popular branch of congresf , such r pre enta-
tlon Instil on population as ascertained by the
census , was plenary and absolute ; but to lay
direct taxci without apportionment was for
bidden. The power to lay duties. Imposts
and excises was ubject t the qualification
that the Impoiltlon must be uniform through
out the United States.
"Our previous decision was confined to the
consideration of the validity of the tax on the
Income from real estate , and on the Income
from municipal bonds. The question thus
limited wa * 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 tame class as the
source whence the Income was derived , that
Is , that a tnx upon the realty and a tax from
the rents therefrom were direct. With re
gard to the tax from the Income from munlcl-
pat bonds that could not b * 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. Wo are now per
mitted to broaden the field 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 personal properly , belongs ; and wo
are unable to conclude that the enforced
subtraction 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 Itself that It \s \ not a direct
but nn Indirect tax in the meaning of the
constitution.
WOUU3 IN TIIKIR NATUUAL SENSE.
"The words of the constllutlon are to bo
talten In their obvious sense , and to havea
reasonable construction. In Gibbons vs. OK-
den , Mr. Chief Justice Marshall with his usuil
felicity said : 'As men whose Intentions re
quire no concealment gjnorally employ the
words which most directly and aptly express
the Ideas they Intend to convey , the enlight
ened patriots who framed our constitution and
the people who adopted It mint bo understood
to have employed words In thilr 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 'duties , Imposts and excIsV on the
other were used In the constitution In their
natural imd ohylons senses , nor In arriving
at what those terms embrace , do we perc lve
nny ground for enlarging thtm beyond or
narrowing them wlth'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
"Inevitable when the clrcumst.incs which sur-
irounded the convention and controlled Its ac
tion and the views of those who framed and
those who adopted the constitution are con
sidered ,
"Wo do not cars to retravel ground already
traversed , but some observations may be
added. In the light of the struggle In the
convention as to whether the mtlon should
be empowered to levy taxes directly on the
Individual until after the states had failed to
respond to requisitions , a struggle which did
not terminate until the amendment to that
effect proposed by Massachusetts and con
curred In by South Cjrollna , New Hampshire
NewYrrlcand Rhod * Island had bean rejjcte-j.
It would sem beyond reasonable qu-stlon that
dlrrct taxation , taking the place as It did of
requisitions , was purposely restrained to ap
portlonmcnt according to representation , in
order that the former system , ns to ratio ,
mfght be retained , while the mode of coll'c-
tlon .was changed.
"This Is forcibly Illustrated by a letter of
Mr , Madison of January 29 , 17SD , recently pub-
llijhed. written after the ratification of tha
constitution , but befcra the organization of
the Government , about the submission of the
proposed amendment to congress which , while
opposing the amendment as calculated to im
pair the power only to be exercised 'in ex-
traordlary emergencies , ' assigns adequate
ground for Its rejection as substantially un
necessary , sincehe says 'every state which
choos-a to collect Its own quota may nlway ?
prevent a federal collection by keeping a little
beforehand In Us finances and making Its pay
ment nt ones Into the federal treasury. ' "
REASONS FOR THR CUUTAILMENT.
On this point of the prohibition of direct
taxation by the framers of tin constitution
the court said : "The reasons for the clause ?
of the constitution In respect to direct taxa
tion arc not far to seek. 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
ns they saw lit ; they had unrestricted powers
to Impose duties or Imposts on Imports from
abroad and excises 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 respect
to 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 direct taxa
tion and to that they looked , as their chief
resource , but even In respect of that tfiey
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 their own condition and resources as
states ; but they granted the power of ap
portioned direct taxation , a power Just as
efficacious to 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 meit feasible way and In harmony with
their systems of local self government. If.
In th3 changes of wealth and population In
particular states , apportionment produced In
equality , It was Inequality stipulated for. Just
as the equal representation of the states ,
liowovcr small , In the senate , was stipulated
for. The constitution ordains affirmatively
that each state shall have two members o (
that body and negatively that no state shall
by amendment be deprived of its equal suf
frage in the senate * without Ha consent ;
MUST UK APPORTIONED.
"The constitution ordains affirmatively that
representative and direct taxes shall be ap
portioned among the several states according
to numbers and negatively that no direct
tax shall be laid unless In proportion to
the enumeration. The founders anticipated
that the expenditures of the states , the coun
ties , cities and towns would chiefly be met
by direct taxation on accumulated property ,
while tlry expected those of the federal gov
ernment would bo for the most part met by
Indirect taxes. And In order that the power
of direct taxation by the general government
should not bo exercised , except on necessity ,
and when the necessity arose should b ; so
cxrrelsed as to leave the states nt liberty
to discharge their resp-ctlve obligations , ami
should not be so exercised unless fairly and
dlicrlmlnately as to particular states or
otherwise by a mere majority vote , possibly
of those whose constituents were Intention
ally not subjected to any part of the burden
< i'Tcw.pi'o.vii.o.v ( ; r.i.\n or
CERTIFICATE. .
Anticipating the Hlght
of the Subscriber to Participate in
THE OMAHA BEE'S
FREE BOOK
TUKSDAV Mny 21.
with nv
cents 10 cover DosUse , mailing anU
clerical cxpcnurs. entitle * Hie imbicrl-
txr to ono volume ( paotr covrr ) , se
lected from the prlnccd catalogue of
thi Omnba lire Free-Hook Distribu
tion. Send coin ; no stamps. AUUHKSS
1'iibllslicr The Omaha Ueo ,
HOOK UEl'AUTMUNr.
Omaha , Neb.
the qualified grant wns made. Those who
made It knew that the power to tax Involved
the power to destroy , and that , In the lan
guage of Chief Justice Marshall , 'the only
security against the abuse of this power Is
found In the structure of the government
Itself. ' In Imposing a Ux the legislature acts
upon Us constituents. This Is In general a
sufficient security npalnit erroneous and op
pressive taxation , ' and they retained this
security by providing lhat direct taxation
and representatives In the tower house of
congress should be adjusted on the same
measure.
"Mireorcr. whatever the reasons for the con
stitutional provisions , there they are and they
appear to us to speak In plain language. It
h said a tax on the wliols Income of property
Is not n direct tax In the meaning of the con
stitution , but a duty , and as a duty leviable
without apportionment , whether direct or In
direct. We do not think so. Direct taxation
was not restricted In one breath and the re-
restrlcllon thrown to the wln-U In another.
Cooley ( on taxation ) tay.s the word 'duty'
ordinarily 'means nn Indirect tax Imposed on
the Importation , exportation or consumption
of goods , ' having a broader meaning than
custom , which la a duty Imposed on Imports
or export ! . That the term Impost also sig
nifies any tax , Irlbute or duty , but It Is eel-
dom applied to any but the Indirect taxes.
An cxcl ? duty Is an Inland Impost levied
upan articles of manufacture or sale , and also
upon licenses to purruo certain trades or to
deal In certain commodities.
QUOTES HAMILTON AND MADISON.
"In the constitution the words 'duties , Im-
pasts and excises' are put In antithesis to
direct taxes. In this connection It may be
useful , though nt the risk of repetition , to re
fer to the views of Hamilton ami Madison , as
thrown Into relief In the pages of the Feder
alist , and In respect to the enactment of the
carriage tax act. anJ again to briefly consider
the Hylton case , so much dwelt on In argu
ment. The act of Juno 4 , 1879 , laying duties
upan carriages for the conveyance of persons ,
wa. ? enacted In a time of threatened war. It
was , therefore , ns much a , part of a system of
taxation In war times as was the Income taxes
ot the war of the rebellion. The- bill passed
thehnuso on the 23th of May , apparently
after a very short debate. Mr. Madison aii3
Mr. Ames arc the only speakers on that day
reported In the annals. Mr. Madfcon objected
to this tar on carriages as unconstitutional ,
and as an unconstitutional measure he wouU
vote against It.
"Mr. Ames said It was not to bs 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
difficult to define whether a tax Is direct or
not. IIo had satisfied himself this was not so.
It appears Hum 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 secro-
lary of the treasury and It may therefore bo
assumed without proof that he favored the
legislation. UuL upon what ground ? lie
must , ot course , have como to the conclusion
It was not a direct tax. Did ho agree with
lusher Ames , his personal and political frlenJ ,
that the tax was an excise ? The evidence U
overwhelming that he illd. From articles In
the Federalist It appears to us to Inevitably
follow that in Mr. Hamilton's Judgment nt
lhat time all Internal taxes , except duties and
excise * on articles ot consumption , ( ell Into
the category of direct taxes.
REASON FOR HAMILTON'S OPINION.
"Did he. In supporting the carraige tax Iii'l ' ,
change his views In tlito respect ? His a.-pu-
ment In the llylton case In support ot the
law enables us to answer this question. It
was not reported by Dallas , but was published
In ISol by his son In the edition ot all Hyl-
ton's writings except the Federalist. After
saying wo shall seek In vain for any legal
meaning of the respective terms 'direct and
Inllrcct taxes- , ' and after forcibly stating the
Impossibility ot collecting the tax , if It is to
bo considered' direct tax , he says , doubtingly -
ingly : 'The following arc presumed
the only direct taxes : Capital or
poll taxes , taxes on lands and bulHlngs ,
general assessments , whether on the whole
property of individuals or on their whole realer
or personal estate. All ele must .of necessity
bo considered aa Indirect taxes. Duties , im
posts and excises appear to be contradistin
guished from taxes. If 'the meaning of th ?
word excise is to be sought In the Ilrltlsh
statutes It will be found to Include the duty
on carriages , which Is therecotuUercd 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
Jurisprudence Is derived. '
"Mr. Hamilton , therefore , clearly supported
the law which Mr. Madison opposed , for th.2
same reason Fisher Ames did , because It was
an excise , and as such was specifically com
prehended by the constitution. Any loosi ex
pression In definition of the word 'direct , ' sn
far as conflicting with hi * well conceived
views In the Federalist , must be regarded ai
the liberty which the advocat ? usually con
siders himself entitled to take with his sub
ject. He gives , however , It ssems , to the
United States a definition which covers the
question before us. A tax on one's whole In
come 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 the
meaning of the constitution.
CASK BADLY REPORTED.
"And Mr. Hamilton , In his report on the
.public credit , In referring to contracts with
persons ot a foreign country , said : 'This
principle , which sems 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
prcperty but a fiction , without the beneficial
use of It ? In many cases , Indeed , the In
come or annuity Is the property Itself. ' We
think there Is nothing In the Hylton case In
conflict with the foregoing. The case Is
badly reported. What was decided In the
Hylton case was that a tax on carriages was
an excise , and therefore an Indirect tax. The
contention or Mr. Madlscn In the house was
only so far disturbed by It that the court
classified It whorehe himself would have
held It unconstitutional , and subsequently ,
as president , approved a ilmllar act. The
contention of Mr , Hamilton In the Federalist
was not disturbed by It In the leas * . In cur
Judgment the construction glvtn to the con
stitution by the authors of the Federalist ( the
five numbers contributed by Chief Justice
Jay related to the danger from foreign force
and Influence and to the treaty making
power ) should not and cannot be disregarded.
Tbe opinion next took up the argument that
a tax on properly Is not a direct tax within
the meaning of the constitution and on this
point It says : "The constitution prohibits
any direct tax unless In proportion to num
bers as ascertained by the cennis ; and In the
light of the circumstance ) to which we have
referred Is It not an evasion of that prohibi
tion to hold that a general unapportloned tax
Imposed upon all property owners as a body
for or In respect of their property Is not
direct. In the meaning of the constitution , be
cause confined to the Income therefrom ?
WOULD DEFEAT THR CONSTITUTION.
"Whatever the speculative views of politi
cal economists or revenue reformers may be.
can U 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 unapportloned tax on the products
of the farm and the rents ot real eilate , al
though Imposed merely because ot ownership
and with no possible means of escape from
payment as belonging to a totally different
class from that which Includes the- property
from whence the Income proceeds ?
"
"There can be but ono "answer , unless the
constitutional restraint Is to be treated as
utterly Illusory and futile , and the object ol
Its framers defeated. We find It Impossible
In hold that a fundamental requisition , deemed
so Important as to be enforced by two pro
visions , one affirmative and one negative , can
1)5 refined away by forced distinctions , be
tween that which glvea value to the propertj
end the property Itself. Nor can we perceive
any ground why the same reasoning doei
not apply to capital In personalty for tlu
purpose of Income or ordinarily yielding In
come , and to the Income therefrom. All th it <
mat estate of the country and all Its Invested
personal property are open to the dlrecl :
operation of the taxing power of an appor
tionment made according to the constitution
The constitution docs not say that no dlrecl
tax shall be laid by apportionment on an )
other property than land , on the contrary 1
forbids all unapportloned direct taxes ; nnc
we knew of no warrant for excepting per
tonal property from the exercise of thi
power or any reason why a reapportloned tai
cannot be IslJ and assessed , as Mr. Oallatli
tald In his report when secretary of tin
treasury In 1813. 'upon the same objects o
taxatUn on which the direct taxes levlec
under the authority of the state are Uh
and assessed. ' "
"Nor re we Impressed with the argumcn
I that , Ircause in the four Instances In whlcl
ha-power of direct taxation baa been ojcsrel'ttl
congress did not see fit , for reasons of ex
pedlency , to levy a tax upan personalty , this
imounts to such a practical construction of
lie constitution that the ixnver did not exist
hat w. must regard ourselves bound by It.
Wo should regret to compelled to hold the
towers of the general government thus re
stricted and certainly cannot nccMlcr to the
dca that the constitution has become weak
ened by a particular course of Inaction un
der It.
It.WHAT
WHAT THE INCOME TAX IS.
"Tho stress of the argument Is thrown ,
however , on the assertion that an Income
ax Is not a property tax at all ; that It Is not
i real estate tax , nor a crop tax , nor a
> end tax ; that U Is an assessment upon the tax-
) aycr on nccount of his money spend-
'ng power ns shown by his revenue for the
rear preceding the assessment ; that rents
received for the crops harvested , Interest
collected , have lost nil connection with their
irlgln , and although once not taxable , hnvo
iccomo transmuted In their form Into taxa
ble subject matfvr ; In other words that In
come Is taxable Irrespective o ! the source
"rpm whence It Is derived. "
"This was the view entertained by Mr.
I'ltt and was expressed In his celebrated
speech on Introducing his Income tax law of
1790 , and ho did not hesitate to carry It to
ts logical conclusion. The English loan acts
irovlded the public dividends should be paid
'ree of all taxes and charges whatsoever , '
but Mr. I'ltt pointedly contended Hint 'the
livldends for the purposes of the Income tax
ivcro to bo considered simply In relation to
: hu recipient ns so much Income , and that
llio holder had no reason to complain. ' And
this , said Mr. Gladstone , fifty-five years
after , was the national construction of the
pledge. The dissenting Justices proceed In
: ITect upon this ground In Weston against
Charleston , but the court rejected It. That
was a Btntc tax , It Is true , but the states
liave power to lay Income taxes , and If the
source Is not open to Inquiry constitutional
safeguards might bo easily eluded.
"We have unanimously held In this case
that so far as this law operates on the re
ceipts from municipal bonds It cannot bo
sustained , because It is a tax on the power
of the stntea and their Instrumentalities to
borrow money , and consequently repugnant
to the constitution. Hut If , as contended , the
Interest when received has 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 nil. This was admitted by the attorney
general , and It inevitably follows that If the
revenue derived from municipal bonds cannot
be taxed because of the source , cannot tlie
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 tnx on real and personal property usu
ally as to the revenue therefrom ?
CONSIDERED DIRECT IN ENGLAND.
"Admitting that this act taxes Income of
properly Irrespective of Its source , still we
cannot see that such a tnx Is necessarily an
Indirect tax in the meaning of the constitu
tion. In England we do not understand an
Income tax has over been regarded ns other
than a direct tax. In Powell's history of
taxes nnd taxation In England , admitted to
bo the leading authority , the evolution of
taxes Is given , and an Income tax Is Invari
ably classified as a direct tax. That view
Is concurred In by the cyclopedlalsts and lex
icographers nnd 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 Drltlsh
North America In 1807 , which provided that
the provincial legislatures could only raise
revenue fnr provincial purposes within each
provlncn fin addition to licenses ) by direct tax
ation , nn act of the Quebec legislature laying
a stamp duty came under consideration , anil
the Judicial committee of the privy council ,
speaking by Jessol , M. R. , held that tha
words 'direct taxation' had cither a technical
meaning or n general meaning , or , as It is
sometimes called , a popular meaning. One
or the other meanings the words must have ,
and In trying to find out their meaning we
must have recourse to the usual sources ol
Information , whether regarded as technical
words , words of art , or words used In pop
ular language , and considering their meaning
either 'as words In the Bonse of political
economy or as words used In jurisprudence
In the courts of law,1 It was concluded thai
stamps were not Included In the category ol
direct taxation , and that the Imposition was
not warranted. In Bank of Toronto against
Lambe. the privy council , discussing the same
subject , In dealing with the argument inucl
pressed at the bar , that n tax to be strictly
direct must bo general , said they had no
hesitation In rejecting It for legal purposes
[ t would deny the character of a direct tax
to the Incomp tax of this country , which Is
always spoken of as such and Is generally
looked on as a direct tax of the most ob
vious kind , and It would run counter to the
: ommon understanding 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
npproached Its conciiislon set up the following
argument :
"If It were n fact that there had been no
Income tax law such as this at the time the
constitution was framed and adopted , 1
would not be of controlling Importance. A
direct tax cannot be taken out of the con
stitutional rule because the particular tax
did not exist at the time the rule was pro
scribed. As Chief Justice Marshall said In
the Dartmouth college case :
It Is not enough to say that this partlcu
Inr case was not In the mind of the con
ventlon when the article was framed , no
of the American people when It was
adopted. It Is necessary to go further nm
to say that bad this particular case been
suggested the language would have been BO
varied ns to exclude It , or It would have
been made a special exception. The case
belnp within the words ot the rule mus
bo within Its operation likewise , unless there
be Homethlng in the literal construction so
obviously ubsunl or mischievous or repug
nant to the general spirit of the Instnimen
as to Justify thoae who expound the consti
tution In making It an exception. (4 ( I
Whenton , D18-64J ) .
A SUGGESTION TO CONGRESS.
"Being direct , and therefore to bo laid by
apportionment , Is there any real difficulty
In doing so ? 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
Prsonal 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 ? Inconveniences might possibly attend
the levy of an Income tax , but that li Is
apportlonable Is hardly denied , although It
U asserted It would operate so unequally as
to be undesirable.
"In the disposition ot the Inquiry whether
a general unapportloned 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 would lead to the
abandonment of that method of taxation al
together , 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
cf 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 arc given , showing that enormous ai-
scts of mutual Insurance companies , ot build-
Ine aioclatlons , of mutual saving : banks , and
largo productive property of ecclesiastical or
ganizations a.re exempted , and that the ex
emption ] reach so many hundred millions that
the rate ct taxation would perhaps have been
reduced one-bait It they had not been made.
"We are not dealing with the act from that
point of view , but assuming the date to be
substantially reliable , If the sum desired to
ha raised bad been apportioned. It may be
doubted whether any state which paid Its
quota and collected the amcunt by Its own
methods would or could under its constitution
have allowed a large part of the property
t alluded to to escape taxation. If to , a better
meature ot equality would have been at-
: talned than would otherwise be possible , since
according to the arguments for the government -
ment tlio rule ot equality Is not prescribed
by tile constitution as to federal taxation and
the observance ot such a rule as Inherent In
all just taxation Is purely a matter cf'legis
lative discretion.
"Elaborate argument 1s made as to the
efficacy and merits of an Income tax In gen
eral , ai on Ihf one hand equal and Juit anil
on the other elastic and certain ; not that II
Is not open to abuse by such deductions and
exemptions as might make taxation under II
so wanting In uniformity and equality zs It
substance to amount to deprivation cf prop
rty without < 1\ic \ process ot law ; not that It
s not open to. fraud , and evasion , and In
quisitorial In Hi methods , but because It Is
> re-emlnently a tax upon the rich and en
ables the burden ot taxes on consumption
and ot dutlea)3iui Imports to bo sensibly di
minished , andr It-rls said that the United
States , 'as the ° Vevrescntatlve of an Indlvlsa-
> le nationality , ns a political sovereign , equal
n authority to any other on the face of the
globe. adqnirft\jo all emergencies , foreign
cr domestic , and having at Its command for
offense and defense and for all governmental
inrpcses all h \ Resources ot the nations , '
would b ? 'but a..malmed nnd crippled cre -
, lon after alt ifnless It posies the power to
ay a tax on th lrncome of real nnd personal
property throughout the United States with
out apportionment. '
TAXATION THROUGH APPORTIONMENT.
"The power to tax real and prsonal prop-
rty and the Income from both through ap-
lortlonmciit la concedeJ ; that such a tax Is a
direct tax In the meaning of the constitution
ias not bon denied , and In our judgment
cannot be succeutully d'nled ; nnd yet we
are thus Invited to hesitate In the enforce-
nent of the mandate of the constitution
which prohibits congress from laying a dltct
ax on the revenue from property cf the citi
zen without regard to state lines , and In
such manner that the states cannot Intervene
> y payment In regulation of their own re
sources , lest a government of a delegated
lower should be found to bo not less power-
'ul , but les absolute , than the Irtaglnatlon
> f Its advocates had supposed. We are not
lero concerned with the question whether
an Income tax Is not desirable- whether or
lot such a tax would enable the government
o diminish taxes on consumption and duties
on Imports and enter upon what may be
believed to b ? a reform of Its fiscal and com
mercial system. Questions cf that character
jslong to the controversies of political parties
and cannot be settled by Judicial decision.
In such cases our province Is to determine
wtuther this Income tax on the revenue from
property does or does not belong to the claaj
of direct taxes ; If It does It Is , being unap
portloned. In violation of the constitution , and
we must so declare.
Differences have often occurred In this
court ; differences exist now , but there has
never been a time In its history when there
has been a difference of opinion as to Its
duty to announce Its dc-.lbcrata conclusions ,
unaffected by considerations not pertaining to
the case In hand. If It bo true that the
constitution should have been so framed that
a tax of this kind could be had , the Instru
ment define ? the way fcr It ? amendment. In
no part of It was greater sagacity displayed ,
except that no state , without Its consent , cm
b ? deprived of Its equal suffrage In the sen
ate.
"The ultimate sovirelgnty 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 ot the country to assert its-f. !
"We have considered the act In no respect
of the tax on Income derived from real es
tate and from Invested personal property and
have not commented on so much of It ns
bears on gains .or profits from business priv
ileges or employments. In view of the In
stances In whlph ! tax'on .business , privileges
or employments , has assumed the giilso of
an Income tax , and been sustained as such.
GENERAL TARIFF ACT STANDS.
"Being of opinion that so much of the
sections of till : ; law as lays a tax on Income
derived from real- and personal property Is
Invalid , wo arjj brought to the question of
the effect of that conclusion upon these sec
tions ns a wholei It Is elementary that the
same statute may : be In part constitutional
and If the pant * are wholly Independent of
each other that which is constitutional may
stand , while that yhich is unconstitutional
will be rejected , t And in the case before us
there Is no question as to the validity of
this act , except sections 27 to 37 , Inclusive ,
which relate to tlie subject which has been
under dlscussldn aiill ns to them we think
the rule laid down | > y Chief Justice Shaw In
Warren against.Charleston Is applicable , that
If the different"pa.rjs 'are so mutually con
nected with and dependent upon pach oth-r
as conditions , < considerations or compensa
tions for each 'cth ' < ? fas to warrant a belief
that the legJMtur6 ! Intended 'them as a
whole , and that If. all could not be carried
Into effect' th Jggljlature would. , pot. , pass
the , residue imlepe.udcntly , and some .parrs
are unconstitutional the provisions which
are tliuj dependent , conditional or connected
must fall with them. '
"Or as the point Is put by Mr. Justice
Mathews In Polridexter against Greenhow :
"It Is undoubtedly true that there may be
cases where ono part of a statute may b3
enforced as constitutional and another maj
b ? declared Inoperative nnd void because
unconstitutional , but these tire cases where
th parts tire so distinctly separate trmt
each can stand alone nnd where the court
is able to see nnd to declare that the In
tention at the IcKls'atui'e was that the part
pronounced valid should be enforcable , L-ven
though the other parts should fall. To
hold otherwise would be to siibJtltutc for
the law Intended by the legislature- one
they may nevtr have been willing by Itself
to enact. "
"And again as stated by the same eminent
Judge In Sprague against Thompson , wheiv
it was urged that certain Illegal exceptions
In a section of a statute might be disre
garded , but that the rest could stand , 'the
Insuperable difficulty with the application of
tint principle of construction to the present
Instance Is that by rejecting the exceptions
Intended by the legislature of Georgia , the
state 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 * in
say It would have enacted In view of the
Illegality of the exceptions. '
"According to Iho census , the true valu
ation of real and personal property In the
United States In 1890 was $05,037,091,191 , of
which real estate and Improvements thereon
made up $39,541.544,333. Ot course , from the
latter must be deducted. In applying these
sections , all unproductive property and a )
property whose net yield does not exceed
$1,000 , but even with such deductions It i&
evident that the Income from realty formed
a vital part of the scheme for taxation em
bodied therein. If that be stricken out , am
also the Income from all Invested persona
property , bonds , stocks , Investments of al
kinds. It Is obvious that by far the larger
part of the anticipated revenue would be
eliminated , and this would leave the burdei
of the tax to be borne by professions , trades
employments or vocations , and In that way
what was Intended as a tax on capital wouh
remain In substance a tnx on occupations am
labor. We cannot believe that such was the
Intention of congress. Wo do not mean to
say that an act , laying by apportionment a
direct tax on all real estate and persona
property or the Income thereof , might no
also lay cxclso taxes on business , privileges
employments and vocations. Hut this ts no
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 , 1
any part were held valid , In a direction
which could not have- been contemplated ex
cept In connection with the taxation con
sldcred ns an entirety , vfe are constrained to
conclude that sections 27 to 37 , Inclusive , o
the act which b arpe a law without the slg
nature of the prtefiltnt on August 2S , 1S91
are wholly Inoperative and void. "
" 1. We adhere to the opinion already an
nounced that taxea on real estate being In
disputably directiaices ) , taxes on the rents on
income of real e'tate are equally direct taxes
" 2. We are of opinion that taxes on per
sonal property or on.tlie Income of persona
properly are Hk lTe direct taxes.
" 3. The tax Imposed by sections 27 to 37 , In
clusive , of the act ot 1894 , sn far as It ( alU
on the Income of real estate and on persoila
property , being a direct tax within the meanIng
Ingof the constitution and therefore uncon
stitutional and } -ilecauze } ) not apportioned
according to representation , all those sections
constituting one entire scheme of taxation
are necessarily Invalid.
"The decrees liviUlabefore entered In this
court will be vacated. The decrees helou
will be reversed and the/ cases remanded will
Instructions to grant the relief prayed. "
Sections L'7 to 37 of .the tariff act cf 169
referred to In the concliulons of the court In
the opinions era all the tecMont of the ac
relating to the Income- tax eo that the en
tire Income tax law Is declared void specific
ally.
i JUSTICE HARLAN'S DISSENT.
Juntlce Harlan delivered the principal dls
tenting opinion. After brief argumen
against the position of the court , conitrulnr
taxes on Incomes derived fiom rents as a
direct tax , he said : "In my opinion , th !
judgment strikes at the very foundations o
national authority. In that It denies to th
general government a power which Is b
may at tome time In a great rmergancy
such as that of war , became vital lo th
existence and preservation of the union. I
tends to re-e'labllih that conlltlon nt help
lessness In wh'ch ' crn resj f-un-l "ce'f iKr'n '
the period cf the artlchs of c nfe.l 'ration '
when It was vlthout power by laws operat
directly upon Individual * , to lay nnd
olltct through Its own agents , taxes Bum-
lent to pay the debt ! and defray the ot-
lenses of government nnd was dependent In
11 such matters upon the good will of the
tales and promptness In making the requl-
Itlons uiado upon them by congress. In ltd
> ractlcal operation this decision withdraws
rom national taxation not only all Incomes
crlvcd from real estate , but the personal
roperty of the whole country personal prop-
rty , bonds , stocks , Investments of all kinds
nd the Income that may bo derived from
uch property. This results from the fact
hat under the decision of the court that such
ncomcs cannot be taxed only by apportion-
nent among the state on the basis simply of
opulatloii. No such apportionment can pos-
Ibly bo made without doing monstrous
vtckcd Injustice to the ninny , for the benefit
f the favored few In particular states. Any
ttempt upon the part of congress 10 appor-
lon taxation of Incomes among the states
pan the basis of their population would , nnd
roprly ought to , nrouso such Indignation
niong the free men of America that It would
never bo repeated.
The majority opinion practically decides
hat without nn amendment of the constltu-
lon such Incomes can never bo made to
ontrlbtitc to the support of the national
government. If this new theory of thecon -
tltutlon. ns I bcllcvo It to be It this new
cparture from the way marked out by the-
others , Is justified by the fundamental law.
he American people cannot too soon amend
heir constitution.
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS DEFEATED.
"The Judgment Just rendered defeats the
mrpose of congress by taking out of the
evenue not less than $30OCO.OOil , and posslbty
60.000,000 , expected to bo raised from In-
oines. We know from the ofllclal reports
ot both houses of congress that taxation
vould not have been reduced to the extent
t was by the Wilson bill but for the belief
f the country had the benefit of u revenue
erlvcil from a tax on Incomes that could
> e safely done. In every possible way the
wo houses of congress Indicated that It
nust be a part of nny scheme for the reduc-
lon of taxation and for raising revenue for
he support ot thf government ; that ( with
certain exceptions ) Incomes arising from
every kind of property and from every trade
and calling should bear some ot the burden ! )
of taxation Imposed. If the court knows or
s justified In believing that congress would
lot have provided nn Income tax which did
mt Inotado a tax on Incomes from real es-
atc , we are more Justified In believing that
he Wilson act would not have become a
aw at nil , without provision being made for
t In the Income tax. If , therefore , all the
ncome tax sections ot the Wilson act must
fall because some of them are Invalid , does
tot the judgment this day rendered furulsli
ground tor the contention that the entire act
alls when the court strikes from It nil ot
the Income tax provisions , without which the
net would never have been passed.
"Hut the court takes care to state that
.here Is no question ns to the validity of the
Wilson bill , except those sections which pro
vide for a tax on Incomes. Thus something
s stated for the support and maintenance
of the government.
"The practical , If not the dlrecl , effect of
tha decision today Is to give to certain kinds
ot property a favoritism and advantage that
s inconsistent with the fundamental prin
ciples of our social organ.zatlon ; to Invest
them with power and Influence that Is peril
ous to that portion of the people upon whom
rests the larger part ot the burdens of the
jovernment , and who ought not to be sub-
prted to the dominion of aggregated wealth
my more than the property of the country
should be nt the mercy of the lawless. "
CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITION.
Justice White stated his views briefly.
From first to last , he said , the opinion of
Ihe majority was but a series of contrndic-
: ory propositions , one eating up and destroy
ing the other. Spsaking of the grounds upor >
which he dissented , Mr. White laid great
stress upon the Hylton case , nnd re-enuncl-
iled the legal points he had made In his
llrst decision dissenting. In conclusion. Jus
tice White's opinion said : "The Injustice of
the conclusion points to I ho error of adopt
ing It. U takes Invested wealth and icadi-
it Into the constitution as a fnvored and pro
tected class of property , whilst It leaves the
occupation of the minister , the doctor , the
professor , the lawyer , the Inventor , the au
thor , the merchant nnd all the various forms
of human activity upon which the propcrlty
of a people must depend subject to the ex
action without apportionment.
"The absolute Inequality and Injustice of
taxing by reference to population and with
out regard to the amount of the wealth taxed
Is so manifest that to admit the power to
tax and limit to this mode substintl.illy
denies ho power Itself , since It Impows a re
striction which renders Its exercise prac
tically Impossible. "
A few extemporaneous remarks worts made
by Justice White after the rcidlng of his
written opinion. He spoke ot the decision as
a blow struck at the American people nnd
said that the power of levying an Income tax
now could only be exercised wltli such Injus-
tlco that no executive body would dnro nt-
tempt to exercise It , for such nn attempt
would bring forward a bloody revolution.
HAS BEEN DEFINED BEFORE.
Jnstlcp Brown In his dissent said : If the
question what Is nnd what Is not a direct tax
wore now for the first lime presented , he
should entertain a grave doubt , whether In
view of the- definition of a direct tax given
by the courts and writers on political economy
during the present century. It ought not to be
held to apply not only lo an incometax. . the
burden ot which Is borne both Immediately
and ultimately by the person paying It. He
regards It ns very clear that the clau.ee re
quiring direct taxation to be apportioned to
the population , has no application to taxes
which arc not capable to apportionment ac
cording to population. It could not have been
supposed that the constitution could luive con
templated a practical Inhibition of the power
of congress to tax In some way all taxable
property within the jurisdiction of the federal
government for the purposxj of a national
revenue.
Justice Brown said In conclusion : "Respect
for the constitution will not be Inspired by a
narrow and technical construction which shall
limit the necessary powers of congress.
"The decision Involves nothing leaj than
the surrender of the taxing power to the
moneyed class.
"While I have no doubt that congress will
find some means of surmounting the present
crisis , my fear Is that In aomo moment of
national peril tlila decision will rlsu up to
frustrate- Its will and paralyze Us arm. I
hope It may not prove the first step toward
the submergence of the liberties of the people
ple In a sordid despotism of wealth. "
Chief Justice Fuller announced that the
court would adjourn for the term on the 3d
of June , and that It would also oil next Mon
day.
I.ociil Opinion * on the tlrc'.nUin.
Euclid Martin clapped his hands enthu
siastically at the Commercial club where he
was enjoying lunch , and after surveying the
fragments of a piece of spring chicken In
front of him , shouted : "I am glad of It. "
Dudley Smith I did not think It a wise
measure when passed on account of certain
provisions and am glad of the sequel ,
W. A. li. Gibbon I regret to hear It , be-
causa It will tend to upset the fiscal affairs
of the government and likewise business
generally , A tax that makes small levy
upon the citizen's property In excess ot his
needs Is a just tax and every loyal citizen
should not object to paying the same toward
maintaining the government.
George Hicks I nm very happy to hear It.
0. F. Wcller It was Just and proper to
knock out the whole bill after Its recent
ridiculous revision In regard to- rents and the
like.
like.Dan
Dan Fnrrell , Jr. I know all the time Hint
this would be the result. It will be gratify
ing news to alt manufacturers.
Judge Ferguson I would prefer to be ex
cused from expressing any opinion on the
law , as I have really never given It any
thought nsldo from the newspaper accounts.
Henry M. Morrow This later decision Is
consistent nnd satisfactory In many phases ,
which the former decision wns not. The
country will be better oft without nn Income
tax than with one , so unjust us the former
decision made It.
Peter E. Elsassor I nm sorry that It' Is
unconstitutional.
Captain IJams Without going1 Into the
merits of the right or wrongness of nn Income
como tax In the present condition of the
treasury , the decision will certainly seriously
Injure the revenues.
J. E. Hous3 I should have been glad for
my part to have b'ecn In a position where I
cauld pay nn Income tax. The law has not
been popular with the moneyed class. The
corporations should be made to pay their
share the same as the rst and the aim of th ?
law was to bring them In to pay with the rest
their just share. The supreme court might
as well have wiped out the whole law In the
first place as to have killed It one-half.
Sheriff Drexel My opinion has been lhat
tha law was a good one. I am sorry to see
the decision go Urn * way. I suppose the su
preme court had good reasons for its opinion.
Charles Conoyor The decision suits me
well enough for I never thought lhat the
law wns quite right. I believe In nn Income
tax , but I think that the per cent of the tax
should be strictly pro rnta with reference to
the Incomes , and. Instead ot mnklng the
exemption $3,000 , I would bring It down to
$1.000.
Councilman Howell I think that the de
cision Mill meet with the approval of a ma
jority of the democratic party and of the
people generally.
A traspoontul of Price's Baking Powder
does the same perfect work today It did yes
terday , or last month , or last year.
*
LEADER3 FOR CLUB WORK
\Vnmen Choose Director * rf llvpartmontH
for thn KiiHlllnp Year.
This week most of the different depart
ments of the Woman's club hold their last
meeting for the year. At these meetings the
election of leaders for the ensuing year takes
place.
The "Moral Philosophy department" met
and decided to take up the study of psychol
ogy for next year , and also review this year's
work. Mrs. Andrews was elected leader ot
this department , with Mrs. Axtell as assist
ant. .Mrs. Itobblns is the new secretary.
The Parliamentary Practice department met
Immediately after. A motion to change the
name of this department to that of parlia
mentary study wns lost. Mrs. Henderson ,
the able leader , wns re-oleeted by acclama
tion. Mrs. Dewey Is the new assistant leader ,
and Mrs. Patrick secretary. A quotation from
a Denver paper was read. In which the
women of the Woman's club of Denver asked
that a given number of the public schools be
opcniHl during the summer months for manual
training , music and drawing. The women of
this department bemoaned the fact that the
Idea , did not originate In the Omaha Woman's
club. They think the long vacation Is too
much for the poorer class of children. A
great many of thesu children have no yards
to play In , ani therefore spend most of their
time on the street. If some of the school
bull lings of our city were opened for the
summer , text books thrown aside- and the
hand nnJ eye trained. Instruction. ? given in
music nnrt drawing , there would bo an Im
mense amount of good done. The subject for
discussion wns "What Most Menaces the Sta
bility of the Republic ? " Some of the women
thought "monopolies. " Ono woman said with
considerable spirit , that If there was le. j
croaking about the fall of the republic and
more work , for Us stability. It would not be
In any Immediate danger. Another contended
that corruption In politics was the great force
we had to contend with. She Is not a woman
EHiffragibt , and thinks as long as women allow
themselves to bo swaye-i by Impulse Instead
of principle , they are better without the bal
lot. Commence with the boys and girls and
educate them so they will vote for right , re
gardless of parly. "Want of patriotism" Is felt
In the republic. The lessons taught by the
Grand Army of the Republic are invaluable.
They are doing more toward Inculcating love
of country than any other force now at work.
There was quite a discussion over the man
ner In which the women came Into the club
meetings nnd went out. "They wait not upon
the or cr of their going , " but go when the
spirit moves them , regardless of the fact that
any ono is talking or reading. The Parlia
mentary Practice department hopes that
"public opinion" will ba so strong next year
that they will go and come "on time. "
The length of time to be given to prepare !
papers way touched upon , the general senti
ment being In favor of more papers nnd
shorter ones , seven minutes being thought to
be a good limit. The club ronm Is a hard
room to speak In , and no woman should be
asked to read before the audience unless she
has voice enough to fill the room. A poor
thing well eaitl Is better than a good thing
poorly said.
No wlno has a purer boquet than Cook's
Extra Dry Imperial Champagne. It la the
pure Jules of the grapes fermented.
The opening night of the "Carraboo
Mines" at the- Empire last evening made It
evident that the play will be a great favcrlte
with the play going public. Its production
was greeted with repeated rounds ot applauao ,
the telling situations and startling Incidents
fairly carrying the audience.
Th ? author , Mr. W. S. Nead , took the
title role , and proved to b not only a suc
cessful .playwright but nn uctor of no mean
order as well. The cast Is a strong one , In
cluding Mrs. Nead. who represented the
witch admirably ; Miss Chandos , who made
a most charming and attractive little heroine ;
Miss Nations , the funniest of old maid : ; Ml : i
Edwards , the most broken-hearted of broken
hearted mothers ; Mr. Victor Constance , who
gave the finest representation of the delirium
trcmens ever seen In the west ; Mr. Bord-
well , who played the villain to perfection ; Mr.
Clawson. a very fine Yankee study ; Mr.
Wrothe , the funniest of Irish comedians ; Mr.
Plair and Mr. Harpur. who rendered very
efficient service. Mr. Edwards , the musical
director , Is a thoroughly good all round man
and did much toward the success ot the play.
pure grape cream of tartar is 3
used in Royal Baking Powder. Unlike - $
like other powders , Royal leaves no acid |
or alkali in the food. $
i
Orlilillo Ciltrs.
One and one-half pints flour , four tablespoonfuls -
spoonfuls sugar , one-half teaspocnful salt , one
and one-half tea-poo.ifuls Royul Baking Pow
der , two tableipconfuls butter , four eggs ,
nearly one-half pint milk. Rub to white ,
light cream butter and sugar , add yelka of
eggi , one at a time. Sift tlour , fait , and
powder together ; add to butter , etc. , with
milk and egg whites whipped to dry froth ;
mix together In'o a finooth batter. Bake In
small cakei ; as soon as brown turn , and
brown the other side. Have buttered I baking 1
tin ; fast ai browned , lay then on U , and
spread raipberry jam over them ; then baks
mere , which lay on othi-ra already done. Re-
pat this until you hive u eJ jam twice , then
bak ; another batch , which you use t9 cover
them. Sift mgar plentifully over them ,
l.lace In a moderate oven to finish cooking.
(3r lmm Cr.icknn.
One quart beat Graham flour , one tablespoonful -
spoonful cugar , one-half leaspoonful salt , one-
half leaspoonful Royal Baking Powder , two
tablespoonfuls butter , little more than one-
half pint milk. Sift together Graham , sugar ,
salt , and powder ; rub In lard cold , add milk ,
mix Into smooth , conilstent dough. Flour
ths board , turn out dough , knead well 6
minutes. Roll with rolling pin to thickness
cf one-quarter Inch ; cut with knife Into small
envelope-shaped cnckcri. Bake In rather
hot ovsn with care ( as they burn readily ) ten
minutes. Handle carefuly while hot ; when
cell store for use.
Illce Flour < rackeri.
Proceed as directed fcr Corn Starch Crack
ers ; substitute rice flour for starch.
HOW THEY CAUGHT OASSIDAY
Onmhn 1'ollce Wnlt Whllo n Potty Tlitot
Horn thn ModurrlRln -
There Is no wisdom like Iliut experi
ence , says some one , nnd the truth of the
saying was ladled out In n big dose to two
fly coppers of the police force day before
yesterday when they started out to arrest
Low Cnsstday.
Lew Cnsslday Is pretty well known to the
police ns a petty thief. He Is a strictly
home product nnd has worked up quite n
reputation. Moreover , ho Is shrewd , Some
time ago n certain small shoe dealer In th
city purchased several pairs of shoes and
exhibited them In n box In the front of his
store. One day Lew passed by. and , being
struck by the nppenrnnco ot thn footwear ,
quietly appropriated two or three pairs.
Several days alter Cassldny entered ths
same store and remarked that he had several
pairs of shoes he wished to dispose of nt a
bargain. The shoo dealer examined the
shoes , saw that they were In good condition
and purchased them. After Cassldny left
the shoe dealer , looking nt the shoes again ,
suddenly reached the conclusion that he had
bought the Identical ones that had been
stolen from him. He nl'o remembered that
several days bcforj he had noticed a man
answering. Cnsslday's description examining
the shoos In the box. He Immediately swore
out n warrant for Cnsslday's arrest.
The warrant wns placed In the hands ot
Sergeant King nnd Officer Chamberlain. The
officers went to Cnsslday's homo at Seven
teenth nnd Nicholas streets nnd found him
there. Ho was perfectly willing to accom
pany them , but uskcd permission to wash
his hands before he visited the bon ton nt
the station. This seemed a rcasonnhlo enough
request to the olllccrn , nnd while Cussldny
went Into the bedroom , shutting the door
behind him. the two officers contentedly and
comfortably seated themselves In two of the
best chnlrs In the front room. They waited
and waited. Suddenly n largo sized sus
picion entered the mind of ono of them that
Casslday was taking a bath Instead of only
washing his face and hands. Struck by the
thought , he opened the bedroom door. The
room was empty , but the window was open.
Casslday has not yet come back and Is
probably now washing his hands and face at
Eomo other point In the universe.
Xot liccan.se of your dully labor , lint because -
cause your blood Is falling to jIve the
nervc.H , muscles nml organs of the body
their proper nourishment. What you
need Is enriched and puritlcd blood , and
the medicine for this Is Hood's Sarsnpn-
rilla , which Is the one preut blood purl-
Her. Hood's Knrwiimrilhi cures scrofula ,
salt rheum and all similar a 111 lotions ,
bewiuse. It maked the blood pure. You
can take Hood's Sarsaparillu with full
coiilldetice that It will do you > ; ood.
Hood's Sarsapairillai
Is tlie Only
True Blood Purifier
Prominently In the public eye today.
rlOOU ' S ( > nro all liver III * , bilious-
MOM , and TUES. , MAY 20-21
Return of Everybody * ! ! Favorite.
PETER , F. BAILEY
The T'unntest Man of Our Times , In
John J. McN'nlly'a 20th century farce comedy ;
entirely rewritten anil levlswl. Presented by the
same excellent company of artists , lncluJI"C
May Irwln , John O. Spaiks. Ada Lewis , Andrew
Murk. MnmkGllmy and a dozen others.
Trices1Mrst Hour We , "ic anil { I , balcony GOa
and 75 cents.
WKD. &THUR
MAY 22 & 23
CANAIIY S
New York Casino nnd Chicago Opera Hou
1'roducUon Intact.
Comody. Farce. Drnma. Vaudeville. Dallet and
Ciiand nnd Comic Opera all rolled Into
ONI ! HUGH
ja . .
The Kale < > f seats will op n nt 9 o'clock Tues
day mi > rnlnif. First lloor , 51 ana Jl.UO ; balcony ,
60c and 75c.
EMPIRE THEATRE
TONIGHT ,
w. s. NT : AD'S NIJW PLAY ,
"THE - CARRABOO - MINES. "
Prices lOc , 20o mid We.
As a rule the well-dressed men
of this city are wearing
Nicoll's made-to-order gar
ments.
An extravagant outlay o f
money is not necessary ; ex
pensively dressed men are
not always well dressed ,
It costs no more to make a
stylish perfect-fitting
, gar
ment than an ill-fitting one ,
if you know how.
Nicoll knows how put your
self in our hands , whether
you have $15 to $50 to
spend ; we will do the rest ,
Trousers to order , $4 to $14
( new low tariff price ) .
Garments exprescd.
Samples mailed.
207 S. ISTH STREET.
CHICAGO. ST. Louts.
ST. PAUL. OMAHA.
BOSTON.
DtSMOINES. PmsBURO.
WASHINGTON , NEW YORK. iNDIAHArOLIS.
KANSAS CITV. 3. MINNEAPOLIS ,
JlARTfOKU. AND , One.