The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-04
THE TAX DECLARED VALID
SALES on EXCHANGES AND
BOARDS OF TRADE.
ADUTY ORtxclsE ON Their PRIVILEGES.
Not Direct Tax "A Memorandum of Ill Sales
Necessary for Collection Of The Tax, There
70 g il is UpheId.

Washington, April BIN the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day 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 Nichols VS..
James Ames, United States Marshal:
petition for habeas corpus by George
X. Nichols, petitioner; Edwin S. Skillm.
appellant, ". the marshal and Chas. III.
ingwerson, plaintiff, in error -. the
United States The cases all come from
the Chicago Federal courts. These
cases involve especially the validity Of
the tax provided by the War Revenue
Act upon all sales and all contracts to
sell merchandise upon exchange. boards
of trade or similar places. The War
Revenue Act requires a memorandum
to be made of the transactions and Il
stamp affixed. the amount of which is
measured by the value of the sale.
The three cases OF Nico, appellant, of
Nichols, petitioner, and Skilm, appellant
present, all the phases involved n stock
transactions on the board of trade of
Chicago. The case of lngwersen in
wolves the question as to whether the
Union Stock Yards at Chicago is an
exchange or similar place making sales
there taxable.
The court in its opinion sustained the
validity of the tax and held also that
the stock yards is a place similar to an
exchange 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 Mr.. ]. X.
Richards, solicitor general, for the Gov
ernment
Mr.. Carlisle contended that the tax
upon sales on exchanges is a direct tax,
first because a tax upon sales is virtu-
ally tax upon the property sold, and,
second, because the tax cannot be shift
ed hut must be paid by the seller on the
exchanges. lit 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 also was made that if an IN
direct tax it is a stamp tax on documents
and that Congress had no power to re-
quire a written memorandum to be made
upon transactions within a State for the
purpose of taxing such memorandum.
The court in its opinion carefully
discusses all these objections. and over
rules them. 1t holds the tax is not a
direct tax but "a duty or excise laid
upon the privilege, opportunity or facility
offered at boards of trade or exchanges
for the business mentioned in the act "
ut isl the court further says, mot a
tax upon the members of the exchange
nor upon the membership therein, nor
is it tax upon sales generally. The
act limits the tax to sales at any eX-
change or board of trade or other similar
place. and its fair meaning is to impose
II 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 the classification for
purposes of taxation by Congress of
transactions there. The flexible charac-
ter of the taxing power and the posi-.
bility of adapting it to changed condi-
tions is described by the courts, it dis
tinctly holding that in order to tax a
privilege or facility enjoyed, it is not
necessary that it should be created by
the Government. The requirement of a
memorandum is upheld because it is ne
cessary for the collection of a tax. The
tax is pronounced uniform because ii APP
piles to all who enjoy the special privi-
leges or facilities incident to the transac-
ton of business at boards of trade ami
similar places.
In the matter of the petition for writ
of habeas corpus the petition was de-
MED while in the other cases the Judg-
ments of the circuit and district courts
were affirmed.