Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/239

211 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY. 211 13 Stat. 469, 479; March 10, 1866, c. 15, 14 Stat. 4, 5 ; March 2, 1867, c. 169, 14 Stat. 471, 480; July 14, 1870, c. 255, 16 Stat. 256; taxes were imposed upon incomes whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest or from any source whatever, and levied by the rule of unifoinnity ^ The cases of Hylton v. United States,^ Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule,^ Veazie Bank v. Fenno,* Scholey v. Rew,^ Springer v. United States,^ have been so elaborately discussed in the opinions of the majority and minority of the Supreme Court that no useful purpose would be served by reiterating an analysis of them here* Suffice it to say, that Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. at the very least is utterly inconsistent with the reasoning of Scholey v. Rew as to the tax upon income derived from rentals, and Hylton v. United States and Springer v. United States as to the tax on income derived from personal property. If the views of the minority of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. should in the end prevail, it would not be the first instance within very recent times of such an event, when the majority of the Court have overruled a line of decisions upon a question of constitutional law, which had been considered as settling the point. Plumley v, Massachusetts " in effect overrules Leisy v. Hardin.^ Francis R. Jones. 1 158 U. S. 651 ; see also 157 U. S. 626. 5 23 Wall. 331. 2 3 Dall. 171. 6 102 U. S. 586. 8 7 Wall. 433- "^ 155 U. S. 461.
 * 8 Wall. 533. 8 135 u. S. 100.