The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-04-04

Peckbam said; "A perusal Of the facts con-
tained in the record of the case shows that
change or a board of trade, and they amount in
substance TO the same thing. The differences
existing between them are insubstantial in so
far as this point is concerned"
In the matter Of the petition Tor a writ or
habeas corpus, the petition was denied, while
in the other cases the judgments or the lower
courts affirmed.
In speaking of the general powers of Con-
gress a to taxation, Justice Peckham said:
'In searching for proper subjects Of taxa
ton to raise moneys for the support of the
Government Congress must have the right
to recognize the manner in which the business
of the country is actually transacted; how,
among other things, the exchange of commodi
ties is effected what facilities for the conduct
of business exist; what is their nature and how
they operate; and what. if any, practicable and
recognizable distinction there may be between
a transaction which is effected by means of
using certain facilities and one where such IA
cilties not available to the parties to the
same kind of transaction Having the power
10 recognize these various facts, 1t must also
follow that Congress is justified If not com
PEELED in framing statute relating TO taxa
ton to legislate with direct reference to the
existing conditions of trade and business
throughout the country and to the manner in
which they are carried on.
The Chicago Board of Trade is treated in the
the country, the size of the chief institution
only serving TO emphasize its Importance
1T is common knowledge that these ex-
changes encourage and promote honest and fair
dealing among their members; that they pro-
vide penalties for the violation of their rules
members relating to business on the exchange
have the advantage of the sanction provided by
the exchange for such purposes Nor is
there any doubt that these exchanges facilitate
exchanges of purchase and sale, and 1t would
seem that such facilities or privileges, even
though not granted by the Government or by
a State ought nevertheless TO be recognized as
existing facts and to be subject to the Judg-
ment of Congress as fit matters for taxation
The tax" he said, lis not direct tax
within the meaning of the constitution, but 1t
amount O. such tax when imposed in a case
like this may be increased or diminished by
the extent to which the privilege or facility is
used and II is fixed in this act by the value
of the property transferred by means of using
such privilege facility; but this does not
make the tax direct one. We do not
see that any material difference exists when
the sale is for future delivery. The thing agreed
TO be sold is the same whether for immediate
future delivery"
On the point Of discrimination 1t
marked that "a purchase occurs Whenever
sale is effected and TO say that a purchaser
exchange sale must be taxed for the
facilities made e in making the purchase,
or else that the tax the seller is void, is
simply to insist upon doubling the tax. Nor is
il necessary to tax the use Of the privilege I'M
der all circumstances in order TO render the
tax valid upon its use in particular cases. We
see no reason why it should be necessary to
tax a privilege whenever it is used for any
purpose else not to tax it at all. 1t is not
in its nature indivisible. In holding
that the tax under consideration is d tax
the privilege used in making sales at an eX-
change, we thereof hold that 1t is not tax
upon the memorandum required by the statute
upon which the stamp is to be placed. The act
does not assume in any manner TO interfere
contract or sale Though Congress
might have adopted some other means for coll
lectfng the tax which would prove less trouble
some OF annoying to the taxpayer, there can
surely be no reason for holding that the method
set forth in the act renders the invalid The
means must be a question for Congress alone