The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-04-04

Washington, April BIN the United
States supreme court today an opinion
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 Etates marshal; petition
for habeas corpus by George r. Mich
OILS, petitioner; Edwin S. Skillen, appel
liant, 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 validity of the tax pro-
v1ded by the war revenue act upon
sales and contracts to sell merchandise
upon exchanges, boards of trade or
similar places.
The war revenue act requires a men,
orandum to be made of the transac-
ton and a stamp affixed, the amount
of which is measured by the standard
Of. value. The cases of George R.
Nichol, appellant, of Nichols, petitioner,
and of Skillen, appellant, present all
the phases involved in stock transac-
lions on the board of trade in Chicago.
The. case of G. w. Hingerson involves
the question whether the Union stock
yards of Chicago is an exchange or
similar place, making sales taxable.
The court, in it's opinion sustained
the validity of the tax, and held also
that the stockyards is a place similar
to an exchange, making it's transac-
tons liable to the tax.
The case was argued by eX-Secretary
Carlisle and Mr.. Robins of Chicago for
the petitioners, and by Mr.. j. K. Rich
ards, solicitor general, for the govern
ment Mr.. Carlisle contended that the
tax upon sales of exchanges is a direct
tax, first, because it is virtually a tax
upon the property sold, and, second.
because the tax cannot be shifted, but
must be paid by the seller on the eX-
change. 1t was also insisted that if the
tax is an indirect tax it lacks uniform
ity, 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 q writ
ten memorandum to be made upon
transactions with a stated purpose of
taxing memorandum.
COURTS DECISION.
The court, in it's opinion, carefully
discusses 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
ciiity offered at boards of trade or ex-
changes for the prosecution of the
business mentioned in the act.
1T is" the court fu cher says, mot
a tax upon the members of the ex-
change, nor upon the membership
therein, nor is it a tax upon sales gen.
orally. The act limits the tax to sales
at any exchange or board of trade, or
other similar place. and its fair mean
ing is to impose duty upon those
privileges or facilities there found and
made use Of"
The exceptional facilities offered at
such places affords, the court says, a
just ground for classification for pur-
poses of taxation by congress of trans
actions there. The flexible character
of the taxing power, and the possibility
of adapting 1t to changing conditions
is described by the court, it distinctly
holding that in order to tax a privilege
or facility enjoyed, it is not necessary
that it should be created by the gov
eminent. The requirement of men,
orandum is upheld because it is neces-
sary for the collection of a tax. The ,
tax is pronounced uniform because it {
applies to all who enjoy the special
or facilities incident to the
transaction of ihabeaS corpus of boards |
of trade and similar places. Referring
to the stockyards case, Justice Peck |
ham said:
"a perusal of the facts contained in |
the record of the case shows that these |
yards answer all the purposes of an
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
POWERS OF CONGRESS.
In speaking of the general powers of |
congress as to taxation, Justice Peck
ham said: