The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-31
ONLY WITHIN THE STATE.
That Telephone Com
panies Must File Report OF.

1t seems probable that the report
of the Northwestern Telephone Elk
change company will be accepted, as
State Treasurer Koerner has received
the following advices from Attorney
General Childs:
sions of General Laws 1897 chapter 314 you
state that a certain telephone company in
reporting to you its gross receipts has omitted
therefrom its receipts arising from messages
sent from points without the state to points
within the state and vice versa, and inquire
whether such report is a sufficient compliance
with the said law.
The act is extremely crude and framed in
the most general terms and is wholly without
restriction as to the business to be reported,
save as the same may be gathered from the
title thereof. In short, the literal terms OF
the body of the act provide for 8 per cent
tax upon the gross earnings of such business,
however arising. The title would seem to
contemplate a restriction in such regard, the
same being IAN act to provide for the IMPOSE
ton and collection of proportionate earnings
tax upon the gross earnings of all property
within the state of Minnesota of all tee
phone companies owners whose lines are
in or extend into or through said state, in
lieu of other taxes"
That the title of the act may be referred
to in determining the intention OF the legis-
lature is a well settled rule Of construction.
1t has been held that where the constitution
of a state requires the subject Of the act
to be expressed in its title, the title thereby
becomes Fart of the act. | deem 1t sate TO
advise you that reading the act together
with its title, it does net contemplate tax
upon all of the gross earnings Of COM
pany engaged in an interstate, as well as an
internal commerce.
earnings tax upon interstate business is at
best doubtful. From decision of the United
States supreme court, the only ground upon
which such tax can now be sustained Wouid
seem to be that such tax is upon the fran
chise of the corporation granted tc II by the
state.
nounced and frequently maintained the dOc-
trine that a state cannot, in any form, burden
interstate commerce. 1t has denied the rlsht
of state to impose license tax upon a
telegraph company doing interstate busl-
ness 127 u S. 640) or to impose upon IL
specifc tax upon each message TRANSMITTED
by it beyond the state QO9, Id. 46O). IL mas
held invalid a license tax imposed upon Tow
boats doing an interstate business, (IIZ' III.
60 and the imposition OF a privilege tax upon
sleeping cars employed in such business w,
Id. 3Q and the imposition of privilege taX
upon drummers. Q2O, ID 4Sgl; IN Cte Ease
last above cited, 1t was said: interstate COM
merce cannot be taxed at all by state even
though the same amount OF tax snail De Idlu
on domestic commerce ,-,
The state Of Ohio once sought TO ENFORCE
q gross earnings tax against the western
Union Telegraph company, Oaseo IN part upon
interstate business. Nh,
The receipts were taxed In gross. ne 4
the extent that it applied 10 the recelpts Oh
interstate business. ,., +, d.,
similar laws were declared invalid IN Penn
sylyania and Michigan. state statutes nave
been sustained which provided lot the TAXA
fion Of property Of railroad and telephone
comDanies doing an interstate business WleIe
the tax was laid upon the basis OF pIopoI
tionate valuation of the properties OF lhe
comnanv living within the state as compared
with the valuation Of the company ehure
property. o,,,o.. ~. ,.,1ee for
tho tayinp officers of the state whereby the
nronortionate valuation OF the property 10
he taxed may be ascertalned. II doeS not
even require the persons companies Vi wi
nora+ions required TO furnish abstracts OF
FL groee earninga to the state, TO report
the nronortionate amount OF interstate DuSl-
ness done within the state. But these %
iections are perhaps, not fatal 20 II. II hau
haen the wiser course TO have 1asnloheu Jul
legislation upon models turhlsEeu Ds Iag
chnsetts and other states which have ALREADY
received the sanction OF the United States
sunreme court No doubt would then nave
attended the results OF efforts 10 ENFORCE II.
This was done in some measure In framing
laws nroviding for the taxation or express
"a and freight line and equipment
comnanies It should be noted that IN neither
of the laws lust referred 20 is there any at
temnt to tax interstate business IN any form.
The question submitted Is, OF course an
important one and / should prefer an au-
Indication by the courts rather than nave
yyou rest uDon my own construction or the
law II is not wholly improbable that as
to cor1nanies organized under the laws OF thls
state. the law In question may be sustained
as providing for the taxation OF their iran
chisas NV own Judgment is that the courts
will adopt the view tAat II was designed to
applv onIy to purely an internal as contra
DISTINGUISHED from an interstate commerce
business.