The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-05
CAN BE TAXED.

Dscision In the Case of the Pacific Express
Company Versus the State of Missouri
The decision of the lower court in the
suit brought by the Pacific Express Com
pany against James N. Seibert and John
M. Wood, Auditor and Attorney general.
respectively, of the State of Missouri, was
affirmed by the Supreme Court to-day. By
this suit the express company sought to re-
strain and enjoin the collection of q tax of
80 on each $500 receipts levied by an act of
the State Legislature against express CON-
panies doing business within the State.
The company's bill represented that if the
tax was levied on all the company's busi-
ness in the State. including that done part
ly In Missouri and partly in other States.
the tax would amount to $4,000, and
if levied only on the business
done entirely within the State to
$4,000. 1t attacked the constitutlonality
of the act as an interference with inter
state commerce.; also as a viola tion of the
fourteenth amendment giving equal pro-
lection to all. and also as contrary to the
provision of the Missouri State Constitu-
tiOn requiring that all laws shall be uni
form. The court. in an opinion by Justice
Lamar, says that the contention that the
tax is levied upon interstate commerce Is
late to interstate business. but entirely
to State business, and is expressly lin
tied to receipts for business done entirely
within the State, and that it was not the
intention of the Legislature to interfere
With or tax intelst-ls copiaerce- IN any
way whatever. The other points raised, it
also holds, are not well taken, for the reason
that the tax applies equally to all COM
panies doing an express business.
That the United States Supreme Court is
fan of 20 ifv hnfh rff To
of the many drummers' tax cases from
Tennessee have discovered. Two terms
ago the case of Charles L. Ficklin vs. The
Taxing District of Shelby County, Ten
nessee, was submitted under the rules of
printed briefs. The court made an order
subsequently setting aside that submission
and ordering oral argument before sub
bench. The case is one involving the
legality of drummer's, or. more tech
nically, an agents tax for the purpose of
doing business within the State, Ficklin
having been the representative of firm
outside the State. Some fine questions
of constitutional law and the extent to
which taxing act may go without becom-
merce were necessary to judicial decision,
and the court having previously divided
on somewhat similar questions. was desir-
ous of obtaining oral, as well rs printed
argument. When the day set for the hear
ing arrived counsel on either side failed to
appear. The court thereup0n very prompt
ly dismissed the suit for want of prosecu-
tion in the manner directed by the court
This rather astonished the attorneys. and
Flcklin's counsel afterward came into
court, begged its pardon, said no contempt
or discourteey to the court was intended,
and that they were unaware that the court
intended it's order as q mandate. The
court was then asked to reinstate the case
on the docket. Chief-justice Fuller to-day
announced that the court. had decided to
grant the request and had set the case
down for argument Jan. 25, after previous
ly assigned cases.
The court reversed the decision of the
Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern district of Illinois in the case of
the Virgins Ferry Company, appellants,
VS.. the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Com
pany. The predecessor of the Ohio IL
Mississippi Railroad Company, which was
the Ohio 81 Mississippi Railroad Company,
to give it all of it's ferryage business in
consideration for the use by the railroad
company of an island opposite the city of
st. Louis. After reorganization the rail-
road company began to divert business to
rival ferry companies. The court holds
that the agreement between the ferry COM
pany and the railroad company constituted
successor. the Ohio ~ Mississippi Railroad
Company. The court directs that steps be
taken below to establish the amount of
damages the ferry company is entitled to
for breach OF contract.
The court sustained law of the State of
South Carolina which provided that the
expenses of the State Railroad Commits
sion shall be borne by the railroads doing
business within the State. each road being
taxed it's proportioDate share of the ex-
penses of maintaining the commission on
the basis of mileage within the State.