The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-04-04
OF WAR
REVENUE LAW IS
FULLY SUSTAINED
United States Supreme Court
UphOlds the Right Of Congress
to Impose the Tax.

WASHINGTON, April 3.-Much interest
was manifested bv lawyers and others in
the decision of the cases in the United
States Supreme Court to-day involving
the validity of the war revenue law The
opinion was handed down by Justice
Peckham, who orally announced on bare
summary of the written document The
opinion. as prepared for preservation,
took up the various phases of the sub
ject, holding the law constitutional as ap-
piled, not only TO stock exchanges, but
10 livestock yards as well, 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, petit
toner; Edwin 5. 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 invaldity Of the
and contracts TO sell merchandise upons *
changes, boards of trade or similar places / ne
war revenue act requires memorandum to be
made OF Inc TRANSACTION and a stamp allAeG'
the amount of which is measured py the stand
ara OF NdIue. Inc cases or George Il;
appellant; or Nichols, petitioner ana on S 9hll
len, appellant present all the phases involved
in stock transactions on the Board OF Iraoe III
chicago The case OF Q. W. hIhseIsoH ~
wolves the question whether the Union stock
Yards OF Chicago is an exchange OF similar
place. making sales taxable. The court IN IT'S
opinion sustained the validity of the tax. and
holds also that the stochyards is place SINH
lar 10 an exchange, making Its transactions
liable to the
The case was argued by ex-Secretary Car
Isle and Mr. Robins of Chicago for the petit
TONERS, and by J. *. Richards, solicitor Cen
eral, for the Government Carlisle contendeo
that the tax on sales ot exchanges Is a dlrect
tax, first, because IL is virtually TAX upon the
urCperty sold and, second, because the tax
cannot be shifted, but must be paid by the
seller on the exchange II was also INSISTED
that 81 the tax is an indirect tax II lacks uni
f0rmity. because not imposed upon all sales
whenever made. The point was also made that
If an indirect tax. IL is stamp tax on dOcu-
nelts. and that Congress has no power TO re-
0ui-s a written memorandum to be made upon
transactions within State for the purpose OF
taxing such memOrandums.
The court. in its opinion, carefully discusses
all -h-se objections and overrules them. 1t
i Ids that il is not a direct tax, but a duty
or facility offered at boards of trade or eX-
changes for the prosecution Of the business
mentioned In the act.
.I- is, the court further says, not a tax
upon the members OF the exchange nor upon
the membership therein nor is it a tax upon
sales generally. The act limits the tax to sales
at any exchange or board of trade other
similar place, and its fair meaning is TO i'm
pose a duty upon those privileges or facilities
there found and made use Of"
The exceptional facilities offered at such
places affords, the court says, a just ground
for classification for purposes of taxation by
Congress of transactions there. The flexible
character of the taxing power and the posi-
buity Of adapting il TO changing conditions is
described by the court. II distinctly holding
that .E order TO tax a privilege or facility in
5ured. IL is not necessary that II should be
treared hy the Government and the require
uelt of a memorandum IS upheld because Ii
IS necessary for the collection Of a tax The
10 all who enjoy the special privileges or
facilities incident TO the transaction Of bust
ness at boards of trade and similar places.
Referring to the stockyards case, Justice