New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-08-28
United STATES srPREME COURT.
STAIR AND uUSICipAL TAXATION or FOREIGN COR
pnRATIrNs NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PORATIgNs NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
W.sHrNGToN. Aug 27.-The following decision
has been rendered by the United states Supreme Court NO
s7-rhe Home Insurance Company OF New York plaintiff in
error AGAINST she city cornell Of Augusta, Ca. In error to
the supreme Court o. ne Sta,e 9I 4eir c Of ,se 1o o,
March. 1865 the insurance COMPANY pfot9feu le lc,io
rraacs Tor ono year from The lst Of January, 1874,
and al the option Of ihe eoml93y, iof SKY Ky uayi
agency n the cry Of Augusta, and thereafter irauaced bs
ms M that place general law o the state imposed tax
a. ns er cent on the gross Of premiums received
An ordinance % ne cry posed laN Oh one any q tt
Company without objection on tne 9TH OF January 1875
t tscr T' c SG y $50 On ca ana avery hre
accidental insurance company located having IN ONO or
ci 10 cuion collection o this tax The superior court
i tSe 5 We supreme court Of the state affirmed lie
decree The complainant Thereon sued out wit OF error,
the rguuet here was insisted by the defendant n
nance imposing Tie tax question void
ena among Them that j. u S2nst YIN '3S S e2a,rfS5 S9gsf
Court rov the case to warrant te exercise OF glac-
& or statute o. or authority exercised under the United
states ana decision must been against the claim
"i or fer must have been drawn IN question statute o.,
authority exercise! under i4e ngon me G91h1 1i re-
states decision must have been in favor Of the valid
& or right must have lnder the Constitution
treaty, law Of or BY yirt9eol comn.ssioa neg oil 1
must have been against the right 50 claimed (R9yset
Weston CITY Council NJ Charleston, Pet, 4tJi NC
Cvvre agt The Commonwealth Wall, $500
there drawn IN question the authority exercised
Nv me Cy under the state In passing the ordnance
iuosne Tho complained ~. The question raised was as
the COnstitutiOn ~ the United states,
and tn decision ayorof the validity Of The authority
so exercised. night also claimed under the COnstitu
on OF the United States The decision adverse TO the
cauu The therefore within Of the catcgoIes we
have stated The urisdictona objection cannot be main
This brings IA the upon its
founded question De considered The National Con-
stifuton (art 3 TO- clause ~ declares that ono
state pass any law iDp2irilg the 0Dhssu0ns OF
contracts Ine Of 1862 before mentioned torOMs
do the business 81 Insurance IN the state
without frat obaiuinr certificate from the Comptroller
company il required finnish sworn statement
setting forth certain specified particulars. Upon
being satisfied the truth u the statement he
IN required issue the &c tdcate. lie Is entitled 10
fec of 81 % f0r examining and Hing e3ch statement,
and Zee 81 - certificate The NTH section de
license fees are cxacicd from Georgia companies in
any other state Shall be eXaetct from the compa
nies Of suci in Georgia. u uoes not appear
iy the record that Georgia insurance company was
doing business I'm New-NOrk In The year loli
This SECTION does affect the in hand The
TAXATION IL not, therefore, circumscrbe in any
degree the taxing power Of the STATE. or OF any
municipality within tho state clothed with such au
fhollty 10 left bOth IN this respect standing Just
where they would have stood this act had not been passed
Al contained stipulation express impicd that either
Court lind that additional taxes should not be I'M
posed There difference between the other license tax
the here in question. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion.