The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1899-04-04
ss--~----ee : -ss.s..-
VALIDITY OF THE
WAR REVENUE BILL
Decision Handed Down By Justice
PeCkham.
GOVERNMENT Is SUSTAINED
all the Points Of the Appellants We're
OVerruled.
SYNOPSIS Of THE DECISION
The Gases All Come From the Federal
Courts at Chicago Much Interest
Manifested BY Lawyers
in the Ruling.
OF The DECISION

manifested by the lawyers and others in
the decis on of the cases in the United
| States supreme court today involving the
| validity of the war revenue law. The opin-
ion was handed down by Justice Peckham,
| who orally announced only bare summa-
ry of the written document. The opinion,
as prepared for preservation, took up the
various phases of the subject, holding the
law constitutional as applied not only to
stock exchanges, but to 1--we stock yards as
Well, the. principle being the same in all
| cases.
Inc cases were those of James Nicol VS..
James Ames, United States marshal, petit
| ton for habeas corpus by George N. Mich
| OILS, petitioner Edward S. Skillin, appel
| liant, VS.. the marshal and Charles H. Inger-
| wersen, plaintiff in error. VS.. the United
| states. The case all come from the Chi
cago federal courts. These cases involve
| especially the validity of the tax provided
by the war revenue act upon sales and
| contracts to sell merchandise upon ex-
changes, boards OF trade, or similar places.
| me war revenue act requires a memo
| randum to be made of the transaction and
stamp affixed, the amount of which is
! measured by the sale.
The three cases of Nicol, appellant. of
| Nichols, petitioner, and of Skillin appel
| iant present all the phases involved in
stock transactions on the board of trade at
chicago. The case of Ingerwersen involves
| the question as to whether the Union stock
| yards at Chicago is an exchange or similar
! place. making sales there taxable. The
court IN Its p.nlon sustained the validity
| of the tax, and held also that the stock.
| yards is a place similar to any exchange.
| ana liable to tax.
Iarnsie Argued Case
The case was argued by ex-Secretary
carlisle and Mr.. Robbins of Chicago for the
petitioners and by j. K. richards, solicitor
general for the government. Mr. Carlisle
contended that the tax upon sales on ex-
| change IS direct tax, first because a tax
| upon sales is virtually a tax upon the prop
| erty sold and, second, because the tax can
| not be shifted but must be paid by the SELL
or on the exchange. Ii was also insisted
that If the tax is an indirect tax it lacks
uniformity because not imposed upon all
| sales whenever made.
The point is also made that if an indirect
| tax is stamp tax on documents, congress
had no power to require written memo
randum to be made upon such transactions
within q state for the purpose of taxing
such memoranda.
The court in its opinion carefully dis
cusses all these objections and overrules
but duty or exercise laid upon the
privilege opportunity or facility offered at
boards of trade or exchanges for the prose-
cution of the business mentioned in tho
act"
ut is" the court further says mot a tax
upon the members of the exchange nor up
on the membership therein, nor is it at auc-
ton 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
| and facilities and made use Of The excep-
tonal facilities offered at such places af-
fords," the court says, "a just ground for
classification for purposes of taxation by
congress of transactions there. The fiexi-
bility of the taxing power, and the possible
ity of adapting 1t to changing conditions
| is described by the court 1t distinctly hold
ing that in order to tax a privilege or factl-
| ity injured 1t is not necessary that 1t should
be created by the government. The re-
ouirement of a memorandum is upheld be-
cause it is necessary for the collection of a
tax The tax is pronounced uniform be-
cause it applies to all who enjoy the special
privileges or facilities incident to the trans
action of business at boards of trade and
similar places"
The Stock Yards Case
Referring to the stock yards Justice
Peckham said: "a perusal of the facts
contained in the record of the case shows
that those yards answer all purposes of
an exchange or board of trade, and that
| they in truth amount in substance to the
same thing. The differences existing be-
| tween them are insubstantial SO tar as TINS
| point Is concerned"
In speaking of the general powers of
congress as to taxation, Justice Peckham
said:
I'm searching for proper subjects of taxa
ton to raise moneys for the support OF the
government congress must have the right
| to recognize the manner In which the bust
ness of the country is actually transacted;
| how among other things, the exchange OF
| commodities is effecced; what facilities for
| the conduct of business exist; what 1T the
| nature and how they operate and what, If
| any, practicable and recognizable distinc-
| ton there may be between a transaction
| which is effected by means of using certain
facilities and one where such facilities are
not awaited of by the parties to the same
kind of a transaction. Having the power
| to recognize these various facts. 1t must
| also follow that congress Is justified IL not
| compelled in framing status relating 10
| taxation to legisate with direct reference
! to the existing conditions of trade and
| business throughout the country and to the
| manner in which they are carried on"
The Chicago board of trade is treated in
| the opinion as type OF boards OF trade
| a., over the country, the size of the Chi
cago institution only serving to increase
| Importance. 1t Is common knowledge that
lnese exchanges encourage and promote
| honest and fair dealing among their MEM
| bers that they provide penalties for viola-
| ton of their rules In that regard and that
contracts between members relating 10
business on the exchange have the advant-
age OF sanction provided for such pur-
poses.
Liable to Taxation
Nor is there any doubt that these ex.
changes facilitate transactions of purchase
and sale, and II would seem that such ia
cilities or privileges even though not grant
ed by the government or by state ought
nevertheless to be recognized as existing
facts and to be subjected to the judgment
of congress as fit matters fer taxation