Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-04
(By Telegraph to virglnian-Pilot.)

(By Telegraph to Virginian-P ilot.)
Washington. April SIN the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day an
opinion was handed down by Justice
Pcckham in several cases involving the
validity of the war revenue act The
cases were those of James NIGEL VS..
James Ames, United States Marshal;
lpetitien-fei. habeas corpus by George
II. Nichols. petitioner; Edwin S. Skillm,
appellant VS.. the Marshal and Charles
| II. 1ngerswen; PLAINTIFF in error VS.. the
United States. The cases all come
from the Chicago Federal Courts
These cases especially concern the va
lidity of the tax provided by the war
revenue act upon all sales and all con-
tracts to sell merchandise upon ex-
change, boards OF trade or similar
! places. The war revenue act requires
memorandum to be made of the
transactions and stamp affixed. the
amount of which is measured by the
value of the sale.
THE COURTS OPINION.
The three cases of Nichol, appellant,
| OF Nichols. petitioner. and OF Slsillm,
appellant. present all the phases in
| volved in stock transactions on. the
Board of Trade, Chicago. The case of
Ingwersen involves Eve question as to
whether the Union Stoe4s Yards at Chi
cago 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 place SINH
lar to an exchange. making its trans.
actions liable to the tax.
CONVENTIONS OF COUNSEL.
The case was argued by ex-Secretary
Carlisle and Mr.. Robbins, of Chicago
for the petitioners and by Mr. j. *.
Richards, solicitor general for the Cow
ernor.
Mr. Carlisle commended that the tax
upon sales on exchanges is a direct tax,
firSt because tax upon sales is yir-
tually tax upon the property sold
and, second, because the tax cannot be
shifted, but must be paid by the seller
on the exchanges. 1t was also insisted
That If the tax is an indirect tax it
lacks uniformity, because imposed upon
all sales whenever made
The point also was made that IL an
Indirect tax it is O. stamp tax on docu-
ments, and the Congress had no power
to require a written memorandum 10
be made upon transactions within q
State for the purpose of taxing such
memorandum.
IS NOT A DIRECT TAX.
The court in it's opinion carefully dis
cusses all these objections, and over
rules them. II holds the tax is not n
direct tax but duty or excise laid
upon the privilege. opportunity or ia
ciity offered at boards of trade or ex-
changes for the prosecution of the bus
mess mentioned in the act"
1T is the court further saws. mot
tax upon the members of the ex-
changes, nor upon the membership
therein. nor is 1t q. tax upon sales
generally. The act limits the tax to
sales at any exchange or board of
trade or other similar place, and it's
fair meaning is to impose a duty upon
those privileges or facilities there
found and made use of"
The exceptional facilities offered at
such places affords, the court says,
just ground for the classification for
purposes Of taxation by Congress OF
transactions there. The flexible char
acter of the taxing power and the pos
slbility OF adapting it to change condi-
tons Is described by the courts, 1t dis
tnctly holding that in order to tax a
privilege or facility enjoyed, it is not
necessary that IL should be created by
the government. The requirement Of a
memorandum is upheld because it is
: essary for the collection of tax.
\ UNIFORM TAN.
The tax is pronounced uniform be-
cause 1t applies TO all who enjoy the
special privileges or facilities incident
to the transaction OF business at boards
of trade and similar places.
In the matter OF the petition for writ
OF habeas corpus the petition was de-
MED. while the other cases. the judy
ments Of the circuit and district courts,
We're affirmed.
OTTER TELEGRAPh PAGE a