The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-26
A LURID JUDICIAL OPINION.

I N their search for a court willing to uphold them
in refusing to pay their taxes, the express COM
panies OF the country have at last found Judge
Lacombe who presides a United States tribunal
in New York State This eminent jurist has found
that the war revenue act authorizes carriers and
shippers bargain to who shall pay taxes imposed
upon the receipts issued by the former, and he can
reason, such being the case, why the express
companies should not make the shippers dsgorge as
condition precedent the transportation of their
We have before transcript OF an opinion given
by Judge Lacombe in recent case defended by the
United States Express Company. 1t shows that his
reasoning is as clear as mud He decides the not
its merits presented to him, but in order that an
appeal to higher court may be taken. THE delay
which would be incurred by taking the under adj
visement on briefs" he says, and holding it for
weeks perhaps in order to study the case and write
an opinion which, in the orderly sequence, would be
the first of three would simply work delay and ac-
compish good purpose especially IN view OF the
fact that it is mainly question of the Interpretation
Of act according to its intent, which is always
matter OF uncertainty and sometimes leads to the most
startling results in the of the Holy Trinity
Even aymen will perceive that this is emnently
judicial reason for writing elaborate opinion in
which lot of tax-shirling corporations upheld
in evading their burdens. Other courts are bound
to pass upon the questions invoved hence there is
occasion for the Lacombe juris to illuminate the
subject with his reasoning and he naturally decides
in favor of the express companies who. doubtless in
ax-shirking enjoy his profound sympathy,
In other words, in the absence of express language
in the statute to the contrary he has reached the con-
cusion Eve quote), that the act has not prohibited
the carrier from requiring the party rendering the
goods pay the carrier the increased cost which the
act of Congress has made the particular act OF trans
portation cost OF the carrier"
This is not the question at all No one denies that
the act has failed to forbid the carrier exactng the
additional cost from the shipper. The contention in
all the far has been that the statute requires
the carrier to issue and stamp the receipt. AS well
might the express companies demand payment for
the paper which the receipt is printed as for the
stamp which makes it legal Not word has been
said about rates by any Of the hafdozen Judges who
have examined the and construed it against
Judge Lacombes reasoning. The only point involved
is, who shall pay for the stamp? The statute says
plainly as words that the carrier shall pay for
H. and it fines him $50 if he issue receipt without
stamp upon it.
Eventually do not doubt the courts of last re-
will decide that the express companies must pay
for these stamps. In the meantime, however, there is
being forced upon the people many thousands OF dol
lars in taxes which they should not be compelled to
pay 1t is in evidence that the chief offender in this
vicinity, Wells, Fargo & Co., is not only unpatriot-
caly Sinking its taxes but that it is dscrminat
ing against its small customers. 1t stamps the pack
ages of big shippers and pays for those used the
newspapers.
The action of these corporations in evading their
war taxes while every other person is cheerfuly pay
ing is unjustiiable and unpatriotic Their conduct
amounts to treason. 1t shows that though enjoying
the nations bounty they would not scruple to with
hold the sinews of were its life at stake There
is one punishment the people may administer which
will speedily bring them to time. No one should
patronize them. We do not know but Withholding
support from them will ultimately become patriotic
duty.