200 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. over which the United States have no authority or power of taxa- tion. The Court were equally divided upon the questions whether the act, being so far unconstitutional, was wholly invalidated ; whether as to the income from personal property as such, the act was unconstitutional as laying "direct taxes " without apportioning them among the States ; and whether any part of the tax, if not considered as a "direct tax," was invalid for want of uniformity.^ A rehearing was applied for and granted before a full Court, whereupon it was further adjudged by a majority of the Court, adhering to the two points already decided, that the taxes levied without apportionment upon income derived from invested per- sonal property were also " direct taxes," and therefore unconstitu- tional, and that the said sections of the act being unconstitutional in these particulars were wholly invalid. ^ The grounds for the judgment of the Court are given in the two opinions delivered by the learned Chief Justice, and appear to be in brief as follows : — The equity of the bill is sustained because " The jurisdiction of a court equity to prevent any threatened breach of trust in the misapplication or diversion of the funds of a corporation by illegal payments out of its capital or profits has been frequently sustained." ^ No reference is made by the Chief Justice to Rev. Sts. § 3224, which provides that " no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be main- tained in any court." The constitutional questions involved are approached and decided from the historical point of view. " It appears that prior to the adoption of the Constitution nearly all the States imposed a poll tax, taxes on land, on cattle of all kinds, and various kinds of personal property." ^ The clause in the Constitution regarding direct taxes was the result of a compromise between conflicting views, " resting on the doctrine that the right of representation ought to be conceded to every community on which a tax is to be imposed, but crystallizing it in such form as to allay jealousies in respect of the future balance of power ; to reconcile conflicting views in respect of the enumeration of slaves ; and to remove the objection that, in adjusting a system of representation between the States, regard should be had to their relative wealth, since those » 157U. s. 586. * 158 U.S. 637.
- Dodgez/. Woolsey,i8How. 331 ; Hawesz'. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450; 157 U. S. 553.
' 157 U. S. 559.
