The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-04-04
COURT SUSTAINS
THE REVENUE ACT
As to Contracts to Sell Merchandise
Upon Exchanges The Tax is
Not a Direct One.

WASHINGTON, April 3.-ln the Su-
preme Court of the United states an
opinion was handed down by Justice
Peckham in several cases involving the
invalidity of the War Revenue Act The
cases were those of James Nichols vs..
James Ames United States marshal; Pc
titlOn for habeas corpus by George X.
Nichols, petitioner: Edwin S. Skillm. ap-
pellant. vs.. The Marshal; and Charles H.
Ingerwesen. plaintiff in error, vs.. The
United States.
The cases all come from the Chicago
Federal courts. These cases involve es-
pecially the validity Of the tax provided
by the War Revenue Act upon all sales
and all contracts to sell merchandise
upon exchange, boards or trade or similar
places.
The War Revenue Act requires a men,
orandum TO be made of the transactions
and stamp affixed. the amount of which
Is measured by the value Of the sale.
ALL PHASES COVERED.
The three cases Of Nichols. appellant,
and OF Skillm. appellant. involve all the
phases involved in stock transaction on
the Board of Chicago. The case of In
gerween involves transactions at the
stock yards at Chicago. 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 a place similar to an
exchange. making its transactions liable
10 the tax.
The case was argued by ex-Secretary
Carlisle and Mr.. Robbins. of Chicago. for
the petitioners, and by Mr. J. h. Rich
ards, solicitor-general for the govern
ment.
Mr. Carlisle contended that the tax
upon sales upon exchange is direct tax
first. because a tax upon sales is vir-
tually tax upon the property sold: and.
second. because the tax cannot be shifted
but must be paid by the seller on the
exchange. 1t was also insisted that II
the tax is an indirect tax it lacks uni.
formity because not imposed upon all
sales whenever made.
The point was also made that IL an in
direct tax it IS a statement tax on the
documents, and Congress had no mower
TO require a written memorandum to be
made on written transactions in the State
for the purpose Of taxing such memo.
randum.
NOT A DIRECT TAX.
The court in its opinion carefully dis
cusses all these objections and overrules
them. II holds the tax is not a direct
tax, but "a duty or excise lail upon the
IAfNtiNtfs 'ln'i ANilltN OF idClHtN Onert1
a boards OF trade or exchanges for tho
prosecution Of the business mentioned in
the act"
1T is" the Court further saws. mot a
tax upon the members Of the exchange
or the membership therein, nor IS 1t a tax
upon sales generally. The act limits the
tax to sales at any exchange or board
of trade or other similar place. and its
fair meaning IS to impose a duty upon
those privileges or facilities there found
and made use Of"
MEMORANDUM NECESSARY.
The exceptional facilities offered az
such places afford. the court says. just
ground for the classification for purpose
OF taxation by Congress OF transactions
through the nexibrty pf the taxing
power and the possibility OF adapting II
TO conditions as described by the courts.
u distinctly holding that In order to tax
a privilege or facility enjoyed 1t Is not
necessary that 1t should be created by
the government. The requirement OF
memorandum IS upheld because II Is
necessary for the collection af tax. the
tax Is pronounced uniform because II ap-
plies To all who enjoy the special priv'-
leges or facilities incident TO the fransac-
ton OF business at boards OF trade ana
similar places.
In tho matter of the petition for the
writ of habeas corpus the petition was
denied. while I'm the other cases tne
judgments OF the Circuit and pistrict
Courts was affirmed 49,