The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-04
THE WAR REVENUE ACT
sIts Validity Upheld by the Su-
preme Court.
A BOARD OF TRADE CASE
Sales at the Union Stockyards Taxable.
Carlisle for the Petitioners-The
Court Held That 1t Was
Not Direct Tax.

Washington, April Sin the United
States supreme court to-day an opn-
ion was handed down by Justice Peck
ham in several cases involving the In
validity of the war revenue act. The
cases were theses of James Nichols VS..
James Ames. United States marshal;
petition for habeas corpus by George r.
Nichols petitioner; Edwin S. Skillen,
appellant, VS.. the marshal. and Charles
Hingworsen. plaintiff in error. VS.. the
United States. The cases all came from
the Chicago federal courts.
These cases involve especially the in
validity of the tax provided by the
war revenue act upon sales and con-
tracts to sell merchandise upon ex-
changes, boards of trade or similar
places The war revenue act requires
memorandum to be made for the
transaction and stamp affixed, the
amount of which is measured by the
standard of value. The cases of George
R. Nichols. appellant, of Nichols, petit
toner. and of Skillen. appellant, pre-
sent all the phases involved in stock
transactions on the board Of trade in
Chicago. The case of G.. w. Hingwo1-
sen involves the question whether the
Union stock yards of Chicago is an
exchange or similar place, making sales
taxable
The court, in its opinion, sustained
the validity of the tax, and held also
that the stock yards is place similar
to an exchange, making it's transac tions
liable to the tax.
The case was argued by eX Secretary
Carlisle and Mr.. Robins of Chicago for
the petitioners, and by T. X, Richard
son, solicitor general fer the govern
ment. Mr.. Carlisle con.f rded that the
tax upon the sales of exchanges is a
direct tax first, because it is virtually
a tax upon the property Sold and sec
ond, because the tax cannot be shift
ed, but must be paid by the seller on
the exchange. 1t was also insisted that
If the tax is an indirect tax it lacks uni
formity because not imposed upon all
sales, whenever made. The point was
also made that if an indirect tax it is
stamp tax on documents, and that con-
gress had no power to require a writ
ten memorandum to be made upon
transactions within stated purpose
of taxing memorandum.
The court, in its opinion carefully
discussed all these objections and over
rules them. 1t holds that it is not
direct tax, but a duty or excise laid
upon the privilege, opportunity or ia
cility offered at boards of trade or ex-
changes for the prosecution of the bust
ness mentioned in the act
1T is the court further says mot
a. tax upon the members of the ex-
change nor upon the membership
therein. nor is it a tax upon sales gem
orally. The act limits the tax to sales
at any exchange or board of trade or
similar place and its fair meaning is
in1nOSp
or facilities there found and made use
of
The exceptional facilities offered at
such places afford. the court says. a
just ground for classification by con-
gress of transactions there. The f1exi-
BILE character of the taxing power, and
the possibility of adapting it to chang
Ing conditions is described by the court
st distinctly holding that in order to
tax a privilege it is not necessary that
1t should be created by the government.
p The requirement of "a memorandum is
upheld because it is necessary for the
collection of a tax. The tax is pro-
nounced uniform because it APPLIES to
all who enjoy the special privileges or
facilities incident to the transaction of
business at boards Of trade and similar
places
OF the Union stock yards case Judge
Peckham said: "A perusal of the facts
''h.aiiisu III tile ie'rfd u the cases
shows that these yards answer all the
purposes of an exchange or board of
trade. and they amount in substance
to the same thing. The differences ex-
listing between them are insubstantial
in SO far as this point is concerned. In
the matter of the petition for a writ of
1labeas corpus, the writ is denied while
in the other cases the judgments of
courts and district courts We're af-
firTned.''
In speaking of the general powers of