The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1898-12-23
EXPRESS COMPANIES WIN.
ls> -sions Rendered Up To the Present -
tho suits Over War Revenue
>famps.

sho suits Over War Revenue
stamps.
In denying the motion Of the Mer.
lha nis Ssociation OF New York in ITS
ass. against the Alarms Express Co
'or pre- liminary injunction IN the
'uit brou ght To compel the express
'onn panic~ 10 pay for express revenue
stamps on receipts. the Judge of the
United States circuit court for the
tout hern district of New York said:
II start with the proposition that
Is between individual citizens. whcth.
.r they be natural individuals or cor
porations. common carriers, or what
aot- originally there il the right 10
/ gree as Z - who should bear the bur-
len of the service rendered and OF all
The Incidents of the rendition Of that
serN ice. That common carrier is
sub iect To regulations 10y congress as
I 10 mutations upon his power 20 make
such agreement with the individual
,tixen is not disputed. The PROPOSE
ton. however. is-has congress pro-
Z
rier from requiring the shipper TO pay
the increa Sed expense of performing
the act OF transportation which the
purchase. ailiNing 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 inasnluc as restri ctions of tn.
light TO contract. which is a right Of
a great deal of importance and
,alue to the citizen, whether he be
an individual or corporation. shoali
not he spelled out OF any uncertain
lang mage. or found TO exist unless the
Ease is abu ndantly clear. | am induced
IN the abse nee of express language. 10
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 a different conclu-
slOn-l am constrained. I say. TO reach
the conclusion that the at has NOT
prohl bitcd the carrier from requiring
the parry rendering the goods 10 pay
to the carrier the increased cost which I
he act Of congress has made the par
tcnlar act Of transportation cost
the carrier shall therefore DENY
the rrioiion for a preliminary injunc-
ton
4 similar decision was rendered in
the case Of the United States against
the southern Express Co.. decided in
The L nted States district court for
he western district OF North Carolina.
october p lSgs In that case the ac-
ion was brought by certain fish ship
lers for supposed violation of the
var revenue act. on the ground that
he express company mad required
hem 10 pay for the revenue stamp TO
'e aiil Ned to each receipt when issued
$ condition Of accepting their goods
Or transportation. United States
udge Purnel dismissed the com.
Haint- holding that while the war rev.
nue. met req ured that the tax should
e pad. i did not provide who should
iake she pa Nment. but left that ques.
ion 10 be settled between the express
ompa MY and The shipper.
decision to the same effect has
lst been rendered in the district a,
curt OF the United states for the
'uth-rn dis trict Of California. in the
lsc Of the United States against
.elis. Fargo & Co.'S express. The
'mpiainant rendered a package "a ,
e express company.and insisted that
Should accept the same for trans.
oriation, and issue therefor a re.
pi having q one-ccnt revenue STAMP
Tackled and cancelled. The express
'mpa NY refused 10 issue the RECEIPT
Hess the shipper would pay tbs
amp and suit was brou ght to sui,
Ct tine express company 10 the pen.
" OF $50 provided in the war rev.
me net Memphis Cornmercial-Ar.
.al.