The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-04-04

ed in the opinion as type of Boards
of Trade all over the country, the size
of the chief institution only serving to
emphasize it's Importance
TT is common knowledge that these
exchanges encourage and promote hon.
est and fair dealing among their mem
bers; that they provide penalties for
the violation of their rules in that re-
gard and that contracts between mem
berS relating to business on the ex-
change have the advantage OF the
sanction provided by the Exchange for
such purposes.
Nor is there any doubt that these
exchanges facilitate exchange OF pur-
chase and sale, and it 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 judgment of Congress
as fit matters for taxation
1.-THE tax" he said, lis not direct
tax within the meaning of the Consu-
tuition, but it is in the nature OF a duty
or excise The amount of such tax
when imposed in case like this may
be increased or diminished by the ex-
tent to which the privilege or FACILITY
is used, and it is fixed in this ACT ny
the value of the property TRANSFERRED
by means of using such privilege VI
facility; but this does not make the tax
a direct tax. 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 or future dellv-
cry
On the point of discrimination it was
remarked that "a purchase. occurs
whenever a sale is effected, and to say
that a purchaser at an exchange SAFE
must be taxed for the facilities mace
use of in making the purchase, or else
that the tax on the seller is void, is
simply to insist upon doubling tpe tax.
Nor is it necessary to tax the use OF
the privilege under 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 or else not to tax 1t at an.
1t is not in its nature indivisible
In holding that the tax under con-
sideration is a tax on the prlVllese
used in making sales at an exchange.
we thereby hold that it is not TAX
upon the memorandum required by the
statute upon which the stamp is 10 De
plaeed. The Act does not assume III
anv manner to interfere with the laws
of the State in relation to the contract
of solo
Through Congress might have adopt
ed some other means for collecting the
tax which would prove less trouble
some or annoying to the taxpayer, there
can surely be no reason for holding tnal
the method set forth in the Act renders
the tax invalid The means must De
question for Congress alone.
In the matter of the petition 1or
writ of habeas corpus, the petition was
denied while in the other cases the
i,de-ments of the lower courts were al
firmed.
CHICAGO. April Enquiry among
nose familiar with Board OF Irade
methods developed the fact that no at
temnt has been made to evade the rev.
enue fax ON the Chicago Exchange, but
that there has been a question as 10
whether brokers must pay tax on
every trade made in the pit or Wnether
by system of transfers could eilmln-
ate a number of intermediate transac-
tions the tax falling upon the ultimate
seller. with whom the trade is hnaly
checked at the end of the day. Every
trade that becomes a matter OF record
on the hooks of any Board OF Trade
bouse pays the tax. The only question
is on transferring of trades between
brokers'