Document: 344 U.S. 583 73 S.Ct. 468 97 L.Ed. 567 BODE et al.v.BARRETT, Secretary of State Illinois al. CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, Inc., OF ILLINOIS v. BARRETT, Nos. 187, 274. No. 187 Submitted Jan. 5, 1953. 274 Argued Decided Feb. 9, Rehearing Denied April 6, See 345 931, 778. Mr. Scott W. Lucas, Springfield, Ill., Charles A. Thomas, Rockford, Hugh J. Graham, Jr., for appellants Bode and others. Frank R. Reid, Aurora, Co-Ordinated Transport Messrs. John T. Chadwell Richard M. Keck, Chicago, Barrett Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 These cases challenge constitutionality §§ 11a, 20 Motor Vehicle Law, as amended. Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, c. 95 1/2. The statute imposes a tax use public highways measures exclusively by gross weight vehicle. Appellants, most whom are interstate carriers, challenged violating Commerce Clause, art. I, § 8, Constitution Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Supreme Court sustained statute. 412 Ill. 204, 321, 106 N.E.2d 521, 510. here appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 2 main emphasis argument is on Clause. starts from premise found in our opinions that state may levy an motor vehicle 'measured or has some fair relationship to which charge made.' McCarroll Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 176, 181, 60 504, 506, 84 683. It contended present not so measured but same infirmities vehicles invalidated Interstate Transit, Inc. Lindsey, 283 183, 51 380, 75 953. An elaborate advanced effect large fraction costs installing maintaining no relation pass over them. Therefore, such this one, determined solely with reference weight, part exacted purpose other than highways. 3 We do stop analyze evidence tendered appellants. For we reach issue case. true carriers. But it also each carriers does intrastate business well. required any moves is, indeed, privilege using Illinois. Clearly within police power exact at least operators. Hendrick Maryland, 235 610, 35 140, 59 385. No showing been made bears reasonable he makes his operations. effort show way manner increased reason operations appellant. In short have failed carry burden deprives them rights protects. Cf. Southern Co. King, 217 524, 534, 30 594, 596, 54 868. case therefore be distinguished those situations where nature its incidence, Sprout City South Bend, 277 163, 170, 171, 48 502, 72 833; Spector Service O'Connor, 340 602, 609, 71 508, 512, 573, unreasonable commerce presented. 4 objections under Amendment without substance. tax, basic sovereignty, limited only if substance exertion different forbidden power, Magnano Hamilton, 292 40, 44, 599, 601, 78 1109, example taxation protected First Murdock Commonwealth Pennsylvania, 319 105, 112, 63 891, 87 1292. problem even remotely involved here. Complaint private taxed rate hire. Yet far concerned, objection frivolous, since neither nor right payment fee, see supra; cannot say exaction fee out bounds. Appellants make arguments inconsistent, vague, uncertain classification violate Equal Protection assume vagaries law dignity, victim invidious classification. Stephenson Binford, 287 251, 277, 53 189, 77 288. 5 need notice one requires residents pay whereas nonresidents exempted provided states their residence reciprocate grant like exemptions residents. That objection, was adequately answered Storaasli Minnesota, 57, 62, 354, 355, 839. And contrary appellants' suggestions, kind reciprocal arrangement between never thought Compact 10 Constitution. St. Louis & S.F.R. James, 161 545, 562, 16 621, 627, 40 802; Kane New Jersey, 242 160, 168, 37 30, 32, 61 222. 6 Affirmed. 7 BURTON concurs result. 8 CLARK took consideration decision these cases. 9 FRANKFURTER, JACKSON joins, dissenting. met asserting ranging high $1,580 per truck because well therefore, matter affect among States. (The apparently deems size immaterial mention amounts involved.) suggested cognate situation, though involving comparatively trifling exaction, unconstitutionally burdened taxpayer's increases number trucks levied hence total amount due him. One embrace suggestion find Court's position unsupportable. declares claim baseless although 'stop appellants.' 11 disposes contention judgments below offend concluding 'reach case.' Its reasoning follows: all engaged well; were they all, could account operations; none thus pays additional operations, protection Consideration undertake (reaching conclusions I agree with), not, course, bar challenging Hence refusal, ground 'it issue,' 'to evidence' rests can mean finds had standing sue albeit formal phrase withheld. 12 truly startling conclusion vouchsafed authority except: 'Cf. 868.' On facts King nothing whatever before us. passage citation refers simply repeats self-evident proposition whose alleged constitutional affected assail it. whether very question threshold issue: Being commerce, invoke against affects taxes Whether unconstitutional which, compliance settled procedural rules, brought 13 If indeed true, holds, who both might, perchance, extract dollars cents him alone, then long entertaining, ignorantly wastefully, hear. 14 licensing States commingled, necessarily inextricably business, instrumentalities commingled again considered determine assertion taxing had, practical cast inadmissible upon aspect joint enterprise. Can quickly easily disposed suggesting taxpayer event operations? As back 1888, Leloup Port Mobile, 127 640, 1380, 32 311, struck down attacked doing business. hundred-odd since, similar considered. (This always prevailed.) predecessors bothered heads needlessly? Indeed, ever Western Union Tel. Kansas, 216 1, 190, Pullman 56, 232, 378, exclude foreign corporation merely local exclusion would 'unreasonably burden' nonexcludable (I am now concerned what 'unreasonable burden.') Under today's holding, there cases? 15 A word merits. Of course roads goods exclusive beginning law; give answer. real how exaction—that basis operation. question, serve me so.

Category: 7