The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-01-05
yHE 1AD IS c0SsrIrUnoNA1.
The Supreme Court Decides This in Two I'm
portant Cases.

WASHINGTON. d. c.. Jan. THE Supreme
Court OF the United States to-day, through
Justice Lamar. announced its decision sus-
tanning the decision of the Circuit Court of
tho lHited States for the western district OF
Mss9Iri that 20 law passed by the Missouri
Legislature taxing express companies on tie
amount of their receipts was constitutional.
The cuse was that OF the Pacific Express Conn
pany. 4ppolcnt. versus j. NJ Se.bert. state
Auditor and D. ". Wood. Attorney General Of
the State of Missouri. tie express company
c0ntending that the law providing for the
tax imposed a tax Interstate commerce. and
TO that extent was forbidden by the Con
st.tuu0n of the United States that II denied
10 the complainant the equal protection OF
the laws of the State of Missouri. and was
therefore void Dy reason OF Its being VIOLA
Ii ID 0f the tourtceuth Amendment Of the
Federal Constitution. aud that tine act was
not uniform and equal i'm its operation. and
was VOID by reason Of It's repugnance 90 sec
ton 3 of article lO of the Constitution OF tho
state of Missouri I'm its decision the court
SAYS it thinks that these propositions on
which the suit was brought ia connection
with the aveTnents of the bill DO not present
any ground iustvlng the lnterpOsiti)n OF "a
court of equity 10 en- ON the collection Oi tax
imposed by tie statute IN question. The
first proposition that the statute imposes 10
tax upon interstate commerce. and ls there
fore viOiatiye Ol what is known as tie COM
mercial clause of tae COnsutut on. tie court
holds 10 be un-ound. 10 is Wei SET
tied IL SAWS IN It's decision, that
State cannot lay tax upon inter-
state commerce In any form. whether
by way ga duties laid on the transportation of
the subjects of that commerce or tie re-
ceipts derived from that transportation, or on
the occupation or business OF carrying IL on,
for the reason that such taxation is burden
Nf To Ia r.Itfffl lu
ton o. lt which belongs TO Congress. The
question on tins point, says the court. is mar
rOwed down to the single inquiry whether the
tax comu.aiued OF IN any way bears upon Or
touches the interstate traffic of the company,
Or whether ou the other hand. II Is confined TO
interstate business, and the court holds tlat
the statute confines The tax % tie into state
business The court also holds that Tie
Legislation cannot be considered az lnYd-
iously dlslriin mating against thtNeXngess CONE
laly defined ly and in FAVOR Oi oilrl co.nra-
uies or Iels us that may carry eRpits mat
Ter 0n certain other conditions o. uudrr ll-
.er.nt circumstance. here is al essential
difference Itsays. between express compaaies
defined by ile act and railroad "r steamboat
G inpalles ali other cempan IS that own
tloir means Ni spoI,ttinn.
Ile caso ot tlo Charlotte. Columbia and
Au.u-t- Balroad lom.any a~ninst Wade
Hampton li.aes, treasurer ol llchiaut
County. t. O.. wa- dec dli iu layOr ot tho dee
..rra.t ll1tc-. tY tlr supreme Court oi iie
ir..tl sla.as tst..r iio ct.o ctals to tine
Supreme ruri lr.ln tAe Supreme Court 0t
-Nut. iHrt.u. whose decision is t-hrned.
Iaa question presented was wnrlirr law
passed Ir t.ln r.l@iatate %. 1ultl .Hro-ina.
assessing ra'it'ai COM, ,'H't7 ".'Aih li7
State tor ,ae faslD-ni ol lAr salaries aHd rN-
...-e.. of the tt.le5 raIoid commission
,u.- constitutional. the court. iu 10. te-
c4..l. rendered uF tt7toe i.e.l, quotes