The free press. (Poplarville, Miss.) 1890-19??, 1898-12-15
IN FAVOR OF EXPRESS C0MPANIE
Decisions Rendered Up to the Present II
the Suits Over War Revenue Stamps.

In denying the motion of the Merchant
Association of New Y York in Its case agslns
/ the Adams Express Company doa preI,M, to no1n'
pei the ex press companies to pay TOT e1pres'
revenue stamps on receipts the Judge OF IN.
United States circuit court for the sou'hefi
Il start with the proposition that as Pc
tween ind vidual citizens, whsther they ot
natural individuals or corporations comiuop
right to agree as to who should bear the bur
den of the service rendered and or all IN
incidents of the rendition of that service
Thata common carrier Is suoJect 10 , reguhbai hi
tions by congress as to limitations upon M
power to make such agreement WITH tne IN
diyidual citizen is not disputed. The ProPo-
sitign. however, is-has congress pronIDltee %
In this particular case the carrier from re
Quiring the shipper to pay the increased ex-
pense Of performing the act of transporta-
tion which the purchase, afhixing ana can
collation. of this stamp imposes upon the car
rier. There is no express language In tn
act, that can find, laying the buroeh OF tna
prohibition upon the carrier; and 1nasmuci
IS restrictions OF the rig1t 20 e9ntrsrt art
ance and value to the citizen, whet nsr no o.
an individual or corporation, snouIo hot y,
spelled out of any uncertain lanSuage' o.
found to exist unless the case Is abundantiy
clear l am induced in the absence OF ex
press language, to reach the conclusion, upoi
this mere cursory hearing Of the oral argu,
ment, and without the careful analysis and
examination of the cases which might, per-
haps, lead me to different conclusion-l am
constrained, / say, to reach the conclusloh
that the act has not prohibited tno carrier
from requiring the party rendering the goods
to pay to the carrier the increased cost whlcn
the act of congress has made the particulaj
act of transportation cost OF the carrier.
shall therefore deny the motion Tor preiimi-
nary Injunction" ssssss1sas-ss .-.,s ,s,s.f,,
Asimilar decision was rendered In the case
of the United States against the Sontnerh 1
Express , ompany. decided in the United
States Di strict Court for the Western dis
trict of North Carolina, October ", lSsS In
that case the action was brought Dy certalh
fish shippers for a supposed VIOLATION OF IN
war revenue act, on the ground that the ex-
press company had required them TO pay TO-
the revenue stamp to be affixed to each re
CENT when issued as condition Of acceptns
their goods for Transportation. United state
Judge Purnell dismissed the complaint
holding that while the war revenue act re-
ouired that the tax should be paid. II did not
provide who should make the paymenI put
left ths It question to be settled between the
ex press companies and the shipper.
( decIsion to the same effect has just been
reni cred in the District Court Of the United
st ties for the Southern district OF Califor,
mia. in the case OF the United States against
Wells. Fargo d Co.'s Express The COM
plainant rendered a package TO the express
cou1pany and insisted that 1T should accep'
the same for transportation and issue there
Tor n receip; having a 1-cent revenue stamp
attached and cancelled. The express com
panv refused to issue the receipt unless the
shipper would pay the stamp, and SUIT WAS
brought to subject the express COMPANY 70
the penalty OF $50 provided IN the Wa rsvs
nue. sct. Observation-Disclosures