The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1899-01-05
OPINION OF UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURT

HOduuS LAptSSS COMPANY oo ~ sAS
Liability to the War Revenue Tax
The decision of the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern Dis
trict of New York, rendered in the
above named case, brought to test
the right of the Express Companies
to require shippers to pay the one
cent stamp on express receipts as
provided in the War Revenue Act.
will be of interest to our reders. 1t |
is. therefore. published below:
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF New YORK.
William Crawford, Complainant
William IIubbel, as Treasurer of the |
Adams Express Company, Defendant.
The Court: ! am right i'll the assnInp |
ton that this is IL motion for prellnl |
nary Injunction, am l not?
MIR. CHOATE: Yes.
The COURT: This is a case undoubt-
eddy OF very great importance, and 1T Is,
moreover, one of those cases in which
the most important object is to secure
the earliest final determination of the
case. Undoubtedly, it will go to the Su-
prene Court of the United States, event
ually, whatever may be the opinion of
any Of the lower courts, or of the Circuit
Court of Appeal, and it is most desirable
to get it there AZ expeditiously as it can
be sent. The delay which would be in
Cured by taking the case under advise
ment, on briefs, and holding it for weeks
perhaps, in order to study the case and
write an opinion which, in the ordinary
sequence, would be the first of three,
would simply work delay and accom-
plish no good purpose, specially in view
of the fact that it is mainly Il question
OF the Interpretation OF in act according
to it's intent, which is always a matter OF
great uncertainty, and sometimes leads
to the most startling results, as i'll the
case of the Holy Trinity. Under those
circumstances, it seems to me best that
should dispose of this here now, on my
first impression, and if you wish to print
your briefs at once there is no reason why
you may not have an argument at the
December session of the Court of Appeals,
and get at least as far along as that.
Unfortunately, inasmuch as you have
not come here on an nSreed statement OF
facts and an application for Il final hear
| ing, but are here only for Il preliminary
Injunction, doubt very much whether
you can get any farther than the Circuit
Court OF Appeals; but II decision OF that
| tribunal will be controlling on the Cir
cult Court here and there will be no diff
Guilty in your getting an expeditions en-
| try of decree and carrying the case up.
| 1t remains for me then to dispose of this
case according to my first impression,
| and | shall state my conclusions with
| extreme brevity.
start with the proposition that as
| between individual citizens, whether they
| be natural individuals or corporations,
! common carriers or what not, originally
| there is the right to agree as to who
| should bear the burden of the service rem
dered, and of all the incidents Of the ren-
carrier is subject to regulat ons by Con-
| gress us to limitations III his power
to make such agrt ement vi :, the indi-
vidual citizen ia not disputed. The
! proposition, however, is-has Congress
prohibited in this particular case the car
rier from requiring the shipper to pay
the increased expense OF performing the
act Of transportation which the pur-
chase, affixing and cancellation of this
| stamp imposes upon the carrier. There
is no express language in the act, that |
can find, laying the burden Of that pro-
hibition upon the carrier, and inasmuch
as restrictions of the right to contract,
which is a right of a great deal Of impor-
| lance to the citizen, whether he be an in
dividual or a corporation, should not be
| spelled out OF any uncertain language, or
| found to exist unless the case is album
| dainty clear | am induced in the alb
sence of express language, to reach the
conclusion, upon this mere cursory hear
ing OF the oral argument, and without
the careful analysis and examination of
| thee cases which might perhaps lead ME to
| a different cOnclusiOn-I am constrained,
| | say, to reach the conclusion that the
act has not prohibited the carrier from re-
| curing the party rendering the goods to
pay to the carrier the increased cost
which the act of Congress has made the
particular act OF transportation cost of
the carrier. | shall therefore deny the
motion for a preliminary injunction.
| New York, November 9Th, 1898.
A similar decision was rendered in the
case of the UNITED STATES AGAINST
| decided in the UNITED STATES DIS
TRICT COURT for the WESTERN DIS
TRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, October
81, 1898. In that case the action was
brought by certain fish shippers for a
supposed violation of the War Revenue
act, on the ground that the Express
Company had required them to pay for
the revenue stamp to be affixed to each
receipt when issued as a condition of ac-
cepting their goods for transportation.
United States Judge Purnel dismissed
the complaint, holding that while the
War Revenue act required that the tax
should be paid, it did not provide who
should make the payment, but left that
question to be settled between the Ex-
press Company and the shipper
A decision to the same effect has just
been rendered in the DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR-
MA, in the case OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST WELLS, FARGO &
COMPANIES EXPRESS. The complain
ant rendered a package to the Express
| Company and insisted that it should ac-
cept the same for transportation and
issue therefor a recei pit having one cent
revenue stamp attached and cancelled
The Express Company refused to issue
the receipt unless the shipper would pay
the stamp, and suit was brought to sub
ject the Express Company to the penalty
of fifty dollars provided in the War Rev
enue act. In deciding the case in favor
OF the Express Company the Court said:
1T will be seen from even d cursory
| TedulnS OF tnls clause that theOuty which
it imposed upon the Express Company is
to issue q bill of ading only where goods
are accepted for transportation or for
each shipment received for carriage and
transportation. The complaint not
only fails to allege that the Company ac-
cepted for shipment the package in ques-
ton, but the implication is to the con-
trary. Whatever may be the liability of
an Express company to q shipper on ac-
count of it's refusal to accept goods Of
fered for carriage and transportation,
such refusal is not violation of the
Revenue law. The penalty OF said law is
incurred only where Company accepts
goods SO offered and then refuses to issue
for them a bill of ladng''