Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1898-12-17
EXPRESS COMPANIES WIN.
the Suits Over War Revenue
Stamps. ~

In denying the motion of the Mer- /
chants Association Of New York in its
case against the Adams Express Co.
for preliminary injunction in the
suit brought to compel the express
companies to pay for express revenue
stamps on receipts, the judge of the
United States circuit court for the
southern district of New York said:
II start with the proposition that !
as between individual citizens, wheth-
er they be natural individuals or cor
porations, common carriers, or what
not, originally there is the right to
agree as to who should bear the bur-
den of the service rendered, and of all
the incidents of the rendition of that
service. That common carrier is
subject to regulations by congress as
to limitations upon his power to make
such agreement with the individual
citizen is not disputed. The proposi-
tion, however, is-has congress pro-
hibited in this particular case the car
rier from requiring the shipper to pay
the increased expense of performing
the act of transportation which the
purchase, affixing and cancellation of
this stamp imposes upon the carrier.
There is no express language in the
act, that can find, laying the burden
of that prohibition upon the carrier,
and inasmuch as restrictions of the
right to contract, which is right of
great deal of Importance and
value to the citizen, whether he be
an individual or corporation, should
not he spelled out OF any uncertain
language or found to exist unless the
case is abundantly clear. am induced
in the absence of express language, to
| reach the conclusion, upon this mere
cursory hearing of the oral argument.
and without the careful analysis and
examination of the cases which might
| perhaps lead me to different conclu-
sion-l am constrained, say, to reach
| the conclusion that the act has not
| prohibited the carrier from requiring
the party rendering the goods to pay
| to the carrier the increased cost which
the act of congress has made the par
ticular act of transportation cost
the carrier. l shall therefore deny
the motion for a preliminary injunc-
tion."
A similar decision was rendered in
the case of the United States against
the Southern Express Co., decided in
the United States district court for
the western district of North Carolina,
October. 27 1898 In that case the ac-
tion was brought by certain fish ship
pers for supposed violation of the
war revenue act, on the ground that
the express company mad required
them to pay for the revenue stamp to
be affixed to each receipt when ISSUED
as condition of accepting their good.
for transportation. United State.
Judge Purnell dismissed the com
plant, holding that while the war rev
enue act required that the tax shoult
be paid, it did not provide who shoult
make the payment, but left that ques
tion to be settled between the expires.
company and the shipper.
a decision to the same effect has
just been rendered in the district
court of the United States for the
southern district of California. in the
case of the United States against
Wells, Fargo g. Co.'S express. The
complainant rendered a package to
the express company,and insisted that
1t should accept the same for trans
portation, and issue therefor re-
ceipt having one-cent revenue stamp
attached and cancelled. The express
company refused to issue the RECEIPT
unless the shipper would pay the
stamp. and suit was brought to sub
ject the express company to the pen
atty of $50 provided in the war rev.
enue act.-Memphis Commercial-Ap-
peal