The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-04-04
TAX ON STOCK TRANSACTIONS.
SUPREME COURT SAYS 1T is VALID
AND MUST BE PAID.

MemorRndums Must he Made and
stamps Put Upon Them in All
Trnnsa actiOns ON Exchanges.
transactions at stock Yards ON
the Same BnsIs-HeId Not to he n
Direct Tax-GOvernmcnt's Right TO
Impose the Tax Upheld.
Washington, April Sin the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day an opin-
lon was handed down by Justice Peckham
in several cases involving the validity Of
the war revenue act
The cases were those of James Nicol VS..
James Ames, United States marshal; petit
ton for hebeas corpus by George r. Nich-
OILS petitioner Edwin S. Skillm, appellant,
VS., the marshal, and Charles VI. Ingewer-
sen, plaintiff in error, VS.. the United
States. The cases all come from the Chi
cago federal courts.
These cases involve especially the valid
ity of the tax provided by the war rev.
enue act upon all sales and all contracts
to sell merchandise upon exchange, boards
of trade, or similar places. The war rev.
a
made of the transactions and a stamp af-
fixed the amount of which Is measured by
the value of the sale.
The three cases of Nicol, appellant of
Nichols. petitioner. and OF Skillm. appel
ant present all the phases involved in
stock transactions on the Board of Trade
Chicago. The case of Ingwersen involves
the question as to whether the Union
stock yards at Chicago Is an exchange or
similar place, making sales there taxa
bic.
The Tax Is n Valid One.
The court, in its opinion. sustained the
validity Of the tax and held also that the
stock yards is a place similar to an ex-
change, making its transactions liable TO
the tax
The case was argued by ex-secretary
Carlisle and Mr. Robbins of Chicago for
the petitioners and by j. X Richards, So
licltor general, for the government. MIR.
Carlisle contended that the tax upon sales
on exchanges is a direct tax first. be-
cause tax upon sales is virtually a tax
upon the property sold, and, second. be.
cause the tax cannot be shifted but must
be paid by the seller on the exchanges.
1t was also insisted that If the tax is an
indirect tax it lacks uniformity because
not imposed upon all sales whenever made.
The point also was made that If an In
direct taX II is a stamp tax on documents,
and that Congress had no power 10 re-
quire a written memorandum to be made
upon transactions within state for the
purpose of taxing such memorandum.
All Objections OverruIed.
The court in Its opinion carefully dis
cusses~ all these objections and overrules
| them. II holds the tax is not direct tax
but "a duty or excise laid upon the priv
ilege, opportunity or facility offered at
boards of trade or exchanges for the pros
ecuton of the business mentioned In the
| act"
1T is" the court further says, mot q
| tax upon the members of the exchange
nor upon the membership therein, nor is II
a tax upon sales generally. The act limits
! tho tax to sales at any exchange or board
| of trade or other similar place, and les
face meaning Is TO impose a duty upon
| these privileges or facilities there found
and made use Of"
Holds the Tax Is just.
The exceptional facilities offered az such
! places affords the court says a Just
ground for the classification for purposes
of taxation by Congress of transa ions
| there. The flexible character Of the tax
| ing power and the possibility OF adapting
IL to changed conditions Is described by the
court. IT distinctly holding that In order
to tax a privilege or facility enjoyed II
is not necessary that IL should be created
| by the government.
| The requirement of a memorandum Is
upheld because IL Is necessary for the col
| lection of a tax. The tax Is pronounced
uniform because it applies to all who en-
| JOY the special privileges or facilities in
| cldeut to the transaction of business al
boards OF trade and similar places.