Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1899-11-09
RULINGS.
Affect Railroads, Express Com
panies and Grain Dealers.
RECENT DECISIONS HANDED DOWN.
Erroneous Impression That the Money
order Business OF Express Come
panies Must Pay the War
tt Revenue Tax.

panies Must Pay the War
tt. Revenue Tax. ~
Recent decisions handed down.by G..
w. Wilson; commissioner of internal
revenue, will be of interest to railrbd
companies, express companies, express
men and. grain dealers in some parts
of the country who are, In the habit of
issuing receipts for grain sold. s. The
decisions following are in regard TO the
stamp tax on the money order business
of express companies; freight receipts
given by railroad companies and grain
tickets issued by grain dealers which
are cashed by. purported employees OF
the grain company. This. latter deci-
sion was made in response to, an in
CURRY from Dakota in regard to grain
dealers who had been in the habit of
giving receipts for grain boughtwhich
were cashed by local mercantile firms
without the stamp being affixed, they
receiving small salary for thai ser
vice. il.54t,iss
4iSl Money Orders. ~ ~
The ruling below quoted was made
in response to letters from banks III
different parts Of the country asking
a reconsideration Of the ruling in re-
Egafd-to the exemption of the money
order business of express companies
from the operation Of the stamp. tax.
The inquiry says that the ruling IN IAN
unfair discriminat ion against one class
of dealers in bills of exchange and in
favor of another class of dealers ) in
the same. The commissioner III his
ruling says: My opinion that these
money orders or s'traveler's cheques -
issued by express companies are not
bills Of exchange upon which the
compldinants base their .conteiition)
finds support in an opinion OF; the at.
torney general concerning checks, IN
which, referring to a decision Of the
Supreme court and works on cofitmer-
Hcial law, he says: "In commercial Law
"a cheek drawn upon a bank is; "a differ.
Tent instrument from a bill OF exchange
either inland or foreign, and that "A L.
pdistinctionsf are fully known and rreec6g..
shi8edl in commercial stransac ions,
Gentinuing the commissioner says :SS4sf1
checks are mot bills Of exchange, II
seems to me that for stronger reason
the moneyNorders Of express companies
in the form andswith the restrictions
in which they are ordinarily drawn,
cannot be regarded as bills Of .ex-
change. The ruling further says that
the objection Of the parties to the for
mer ruling was BASED upon a miscon-
ception, of its purport and is strictly
confined to the money order business
Of express companies and not In regard
to bills of exchange which, correspond
ents confuse with the former.
Expresss Receipts. u
Theme decision deals with express
receipts and 'she inquiry upon which
the ruling in asked states, that q firm
receives goods at a certain place con.
Signed to given point and points 81.
lyhnd. for which the firm issues no y ~:
iceiptsA to the4 shipper. The shippers,
however, give with each shipment 3
receipt itoithe party to whom the pack
age is addressed, if the destination Ii
the hxed point, and are taken to the
point from which the package wis
shipped, where they afflx and cancel q
stamp, sand then. forward the package
with the receipt, where it is signed by
the one to whom it. is addressed and
placed on file in the office where it re-
mains. Correspondents ask If this
mode}of procedure is correct. The com.
missioner calls their attention TO the
law and continuing says: s.Yon are
advised that under the law it speeifis
cally states that it is the duty, of a
common carrier, to issue to the shipper
ortthe consignor a receipt, bill Of lad
ing9or other evidence of receipt and
forwarding for each shipment, and to
said receipt or bill of fading, sor other
evidence of recipe and forwarding,
and to each duplicate thereof, thers
must, be affixed a 1-cent stamp. There
fore the practice followed above de-
scribed is contrary to law. They must
issue, to the consigpor for each pack
age received at the shipping point for
destination at the fixed point or else
where, receipt and TO such receipt
they must attach a 1-ceut stamp."l i
Continuing the correspondents, state
that. railroad and steamship companies
decline to recognize local expressmen
as common carriers, and on issuing to
them receipt for the transfer and for
warding, issue, an unstamped receipt,
treating it as p transfer. This leads to
confusion and makes it uncertain to
local expressmen as to what Is requir.
ed of them, resulting in some cases in
q double stamping, and in many cases
the issuing of receipts by. local ex-
pressmen to which no stamp is affixed.
The commissioner in the ruling hand
ed down says: "Yous are advised that
when local expressnan receives q
package, its destination being q point
outside the limits. OF the city in which
said local expressman has his Office, the
local eApressman must issue receipt
and to said receipt must affix l-cene
stamp. If said receipt is sufficient to
carry the package to its final destina.
ton, although It may require several
intermediate lines to complete the
shipment. but one stamp is required.
II. however, said receipt is only suffi-
Gent to carry the package to. say,
Boston when 1t is delivered to a rail
road, steamship or express company,
said company must give. q receipt GOV.
ering the transportation Of sthe pack.
[age to It's final destination. and to said
receipt they must affix 1-cent stamp,
Ifja local expressman accents n p,oir