The Topeka state journal., 1899-04-03
STOCK YARDS MUST PAY
War Revenue Tax on Trades just the
Same as Grain Exchange.


Washington. April Sin the United
States supreme today 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; petition for ha-
beas corpus by George r. Nicols, pc
titioner; Edward S. Skillen, appellant,
VS.. the marshal, and Charles H. Ing
wersen, plaintiff in error, VS.. the United
States. The cases all came up from the
federal courts. The cases involve spec
tally the invalidity of the tax provided
by the war revenue act upon sales and
contracts to sell merchandise upon ex-
changes, boards of trades, or similar
places. The war revenue act requires a
memorandum to be made of the trans
action and stamp affixed, the amount
of which is measured by the value of
the sale. Three cases of Nichols, ap-
pellant of Nichols, petitioner, and OF
Skillen, appellant, present all the phases
involved in stock transactions on the
board of trade at Chicago. The case of
Ingwersen involves the question as to
whether the Union stock yards at Chi
cago is an exchange or similar place.
making sales there taxable. The court
in it's opinion sustained the validity of
the tax and held also that the stock
yards is a place similar to an exchange,
making it's transactions liable to the
tax. The case was argued by eX-Sec-
retary Carlisle and Mr.. Robbins of Chi
cago for the petitioners and by Mr.. J. K
Richards solicitor general, for the
government. Mr.. Carlisle contended
that the tax upon sales on exchanges is
a direct tax, first as tax upon sales is
virtually tax upon the property sold,
and second because the tax can not be
shifted, but must be paid by the seller
the exchange. 1t was also insisted
that if the tax is an indirect tax it lacks
uniformity because not imposed upon all
sales wherever made. The point was
also made that if an indirect tax, it is
a stamp tax on documents, and that
congress had no power to require
written memorandum to be made upon
transactions within a state for the pur-
pose of taxing such memorandums.
The court, in it's opinion carefully dis
cusses all these objections and oVerrules
them. 1t holds the tax is not a direct
tax but "a duty, or excise laid upon the
privilege, opportunity, or facility offer
cred at boards of trade, or exchanges,
for the prosecution of the business men
toned in the act.
1T is the court further says, mot 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 or other similar place,
and it's fair meaning is to impose a duty
upon those privileges or facilities there
found"
The exceptional facilities offered at
such places affords, the court says, a
just ground for classification for pur-
poses OF UaXallOn Dy congress OF trans
actions there The flexible character
of the taxing power and the possibility
of adapting it to changing conditions is
described by the court, it distinctly
holding that in order to tax a privilege
or facility, it is not necessary that it
should be created by the government
The requirement of a memorandum is
upheld because it is necessary for the
collection of a tax. The tax is pro-
nounced uniform because it applies to
all who enjoy the special privileges, or
facilities incident to the transaction of
business at boards of trade and similar
places.