Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-04
STOCK EXCHANGE AND STAMP TAN.
Supreme Court Sustains 1t In CHI
cagO Cases.

WASHINGTON. April 3.-In the SUI
preme Court of the United States to-day
an opinion was handed down by Justice
Peckham in several cases involving the
validity oe the war-revenue act. The
| cases were those of James Nichols VS..
| James Ames United States Marshal;
petition for habeas corpus by George
r. Nichols, petitioner; Edwin S. skilman
| appellant vs.. United States Marshal. and
| Charles II. IngerWesen, plaintiff in error,
vs.. the United States.
The cases all came from the Chicago
Federal courts. They involve especially
the validity OF the tax provided by the
War-revcnue act upon all sales of, and
all contracts TO sell merchandise. upon
exchanges, boards Of trade. and similar
places.
The war revenue act requires a memo
Tandum TO be made OF the transactions
and a stamp affixed, the amount OF which
is measured by the value OF the sale.
The three first cases OF Nichols VS..
Ames: Nichols, petitioner and Sldllman.
appellant. involve all the phases involved
in stock transactions on the Chicago
Board. The case of Ingerwesen involves
transactions al the stock-yards in Chi
cago, AT an exchange. or in any similar
place. making sales there taxable.
The court, In its opinion. sustained the
validity of the tax, and held also that
the stock-yards are place similar to an
exchange, making their transactions liable
10 the tax.
CARLISLE OF COUNSEL.
The case was argued by ex-Secretary
Carlisle and Mr.. Robbins. OF Chicago, for
the petitioners. and by Mr.. j. Is. Rich
ards. Solicitor General, for the govern
ment.
Mr.. Carlisle contended that the tax upon
sales on an exchange is a direct tax hrst,
because a tax upon sales is virtually 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 II me
tax is an indirect tax. II lacks uniformity,
because not imposed upon all sales where
ever made.
The point was also made that If an In
direct tax, il is statement tax on the
documents. and that Congress has no
mower TO require a written memorandum
10 be made on written transactions IN
State for the purpose Of taxing such
memorandum.
The court. in its opinion, carefully dis
cusses all Of these objections, ana over
rules them. 1t holds that the tax Is not
a direct tax, but "a duty or excise lald
upon the privilege. opportunity OF iaclliy
offered AT boards Of trade or exchanges
for the prosecution OF the puSih''''' INV
toned IN the act.
THE TAX ONE ON PRIVILEGES.
1T is" the court further says, not
tax upon the members of the exchange
or the membership therein, nor is IL tax
upon sales generally. The act limits the
tax TO sales at any exchange or board OF
trade, or other similar place, ana us iar
meaning is TO impose duty upon 'hosS
privileges or facilities there fouhd anu
made use Of.
The exceptional facilities offered at such
places afford. the court says, just
ground for the classification for the pur-
nose of taxation by Congress Of transac-
tions. through the hexibility OF the taxing
mower. and the possibility of adapting II
fo conditions as described; the court dis
tinctly holding that I'm order to tax a
privilege or facility enjoyed it is not ne
cessarv that II should be created by the
government
The requirement of a memorandum is
UNFOLD because it Is necessary for the
collection Of "A tax. The tax is pro-
uniform, because II applies TO all
who enjoy the special privileges or facili-
ties incident TO the transaction OF pusi-
ness at boards Of trade ana similar
places.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED.
In the matter OF the petition for writ
IF habeas corpus, the petition was denied,
while In the other cases the Judgments OF
he Circuit and District courts were al
irmed.