The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-04-04
Justice Peckham Of the United
States Supreme Court
Renders an Important Opinion as TO the
Validity Of the Law.


stock Yards as Well, the Prin-
cip1e Being the Same in all
Gases.
WASHINGTON, April 3.-Much in
terest was manifested by lawyers and
others in the decision of the cases in
the United States Supreme Court to-
day, involving the validity of the wal
revenue law. The opinion was handed
down by Justice Peckham, who orally
announced only al bare summary of the
written document. The opinion, as pre-
pared for preservation, took up the
various phases of the subject, holding
the law constitutional as applied not
only to stock exchanges, but to live
stock yards as we'll, the principle being
the same in all cases.
The cases were those of James N.
Young VS.. James Ames, United States
Marshal; petition for habeas corpus by
George r. Nichols, petitioner; Edwin
S. Skillen, appellant, VS.. the Marshal,
and Charles Hingwersen, plaintiff in
error, vs. the United States. The cases
all came from the Chicago Federal
courts.
These cases involve especially the in
validity of the tax provided 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 memoran-
DUN to be made of the transaction, 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 in
volved in stock transactions on the
Board of Trade in Chicago. The case
of G. w Hingwersen involves the ques-
ton whether the Union Stockyards of
Chicago is an exchange or similar place,
making sales taxable.
The court in its opinion sustained the
validity of the Act, and held also that
the stockyards is a place similar to an
exchange, making its transactions liable
to the tax.
The case was argued by ex-Secretary
Carlisle and Mr. Robins of Chicago for
the petitioners, and by J. B.. K. Rich
ards Solicitor General. for the Govern
ment. Carlisle centended that the tax
on 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
he paid by the seller on the exchange.
1t was also insisted that if the tax is
an indirect tax it lacks uniformity be-
cause not imposed upon all such sales
whenever made.
The point was also made that, if ian
indirect tax, it is a stamp tax on docu-
ments, and that Congress had no power
to require a written memorandum to be
made upon transactions within State
for the purpose of taxing such memo
randa
The court in it's opinion carefully dis
cusses all these objections, and over
rules them. 1t holds that it is not a
direct tax but a duty or excise laid
upon the privilege. opportunity and ia
cility offered at Boards of Trade or ex-
changes for the prosecution of the
business mentioned in the Act.
1T is" the court further 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 priv
ileges or facility there found and made
use Of
The exceptional facilities offered at
such places affords, the court says, a
just ground for classification for Dur-
poses of taxation by Congress of trans
actions there. The flexible character of
the taxing power and the possibility Of
adapting it to changing conditions is
distributed by the courts, it distinctly
holding that in order to tax privilege
or facility injured it is not necessary
that II should be created by the Gov
eminent; the requirement of a memo
randum 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 priv
ileges of facilities incident to the trans
action of business at Boards of Trade
and similar places.
Referring to the stock yards case,
Justice Peckham said: "A perusal OF
the facts contained in the record of
the case shows that these yards serve
all the purposes of an exchange or a
Board of Trade. and they amount in
substance to the same thing. The diff
ferences existing between them are in
substantial insofar as this point is con-
cerned"
In speaking of the general powers of
Congress as to taxation, Justice Peck
ham said:
I'm searching for proper subjects OF
taxation to raise moneys for the sup
port of the Government, Congress must
have the right to recognize the manner
in which the business of the country
Is actually transacted; how. among oth-
err things. the exchange of commodities
is effected; what facilities for the con-
duct of business exist; what is their
nature and how they operate; and
what. If any, practicable and recognlza-
Bile distinction there may be between a
transaction which is effected by means
of using certain facilities and one
where such facilities are not available
of by the parties to the same kind of a
transaction.
Having the power to recognize these
various facts, it must also follow that
Congress is justified. if not compelled.
in framing a. statute relating to taxa
ton to legislate with direct reference
to the existing conditions of trade and
business throughout the country. and
TO the manner in which they are car
ried on
'.The Chicago Board of Trade is treat