In Clark v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, Clark, was charged with the crime of embezzlement, but the indictment failed to allege that the money was taken from the United States. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient and that the defendant could not be convicted. The Court reasoned that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime in order to be valid. In this case, the indictment failed to allege that the money was taken from the United States, which was an essential element of the crime of embezzlement. Therefore, the indictment was insufficient and the defendant could not be convicted. The Court also noted that the defendant had a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court held that the indictment must be sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since the indictment in this case failed to allege an essential element of the crime, it was insufficient and the defendant could not be convicted.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clark v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to impose a tax on income from real estate investments when it passed the Revenue Act of 1864, which imposed taxes on incomes derived from certain professions or occupations. Rather, he believed Congress only meant to tax those who were engaged in trade or business activities for profit. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Congress did intend to include real estate investments within its scope of taxation under this act, such an interpretation would violate due process by imposing a retroactive burden upon individuals who had already made their investment decisions prior to passage of the law. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that no one could be taxed without clear legislative intent and urged reversal of the lower court's decision affirming imposition of a tax on income derived from real estate investments as unconstitutional and void ab initio (from inception).