The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-08-22
WELLS-FARGO
MUST HONOR
THE WAR TAX
Statement of Attorney
General Ford.

| The Government will see that the law is
obeyed, but it is the duty of the state 70
| see that corporations reaping vast proilts
| yearly under the protection of its laws
| shall do their duty toward the people 1t
has been suggested here that the company
may evade the payment of the war tax
by refusing to accept packages until the
revenue tax has been affixed by the snip
per to the manifest If the company does
this we may see fit TO annul the corpora
ton and place the business in other
hands. 1t has also been suggested that II
this company is held liable for the war
tax it will raise the express charges, AS
this is not an issue here we will not dis
cuss it, but if the company should follow
TINS course IN event of adverse DECISION
there is time ahead for those intrusted to
enforce the law TO see that 1t IS obeyed.
In the above language Attorney General
Ford closed his argument before Judge
Trout yesterday in the matter OF the APP
plication of w. II. Anderson, on behalf OF
the people, for a writ of mandate to COM
pei Wells, Fargo & Co. to bear its snare
of war expenses and affiX the proper
stamp to each receipt issued, instead OF
compelling the people to bear this burden,
which the law never intended they shoulo.
When the matter came up for argument
Attorney General Ford and his assistant,
w. NJ. Abbott, appeared for the petitioner,
while the defendant was represented by
Attorney A. Sutro in the absence of e. 5.
Pillsbury, attorney of record. The facts
of the case on which the action is 20 be
determined are these:
On October 10 last w. II. Anderson, then
Assistant Attorney General, presented to
Wells, Fargo & Co. a package for ship
ment to Sacramento. Express charges
were paid by Mr. Anderson, but the com
pany demanded that he attiX an internal
revenue stamp of one cent TO the bill or
lading or manifest. Contendlng that thlS
was the duty of the corporation the de-
mand was not complied with, and the
company thereupon refused TO FORWARD
the package. Upon such refusal a petit
ton for a writ of mandate 10 be directed
against the company compelling IL 10 al
Tx the revenue stamp was applied for.
Attorney General Ford first addressed
the court. He contended under the law 1t
was plainly the duty of the company TO
| furnish attiX and cancel the STAMP and
not that of the shipper. Continuing, he
| said: Under the war revenue act Il Is
| the duty of the carrier to issue receipt,
and it Is mandatory that such receipt be
stamped before issued. 1t has been held
that the requirement that a written
memorandum be given by the seller to
| the buyer of oral sales in the stock eX-
change, and that a stamp be affixed to
such memorandum is lawful means of
enforcing the collection of the tax and the
same rule applies TO receipts issued by
| express companies.
IF a receipt be issued without stamp
is a1l1Aeu thereto the person or corpora
ton issuing the same is liable to fine of
500, while there is no penalty prescribed
for the receiving of the same, the sole
penalty being imposed on the person issu-
ing the same. 1t has also been held that
the person who makes or issues the same
must aftix the stamp thereto. the burden
| being plainly imposed on the maker of
the receipt
On this line Attorney General Ford made
further argument. He said that the ship
per was Indifferent as to whether a re-
GENT tGS1p6 he aSl-n oil
was that his goods be accepted and for
warded upon the payment of the usual
chaTge but FOR prd Its own protscion the
| hence it was its duty to pay the tax.
Mr.. Sutro followed Mr. Ford and in part
without much calculation it can read
lily be seen that the forcing of this burden
upon the company would result in a great
hardship, while on the other hand even
the largest shippers could not complain.
II the company was compelled to affiX
these stamps as il Is herein intended to
compel it, it would result in an annual
loss of about 900, or, in other words
sum equal to per cent of it's entire
capital stock. But from matters of fact to
those of law, | wish to impress upon the
court that the revenue tax law does not
provide for a direct tax, and If 1t is such
1t is unconstitutional as it is not properly
apporuoned among the States in accord
ance with their population. The idea and
purpose of the stamp tax act is to evil
dence transactions, and it is, in fact not a
tax upon the instrument, but on the
transaction. In consequence the Question
arises, Who is the beneficiary of the trans
action? 1t is not denied that the COM
pany is the beneficiary to the extent Of
per Sc the benefit of the transaction falls
to those between whom the commodities
pass through the agency of the shipping
company. There is nothing in the act
which denotes who shall pay the tax
Even under the opinion of the United
States Attorney General it is admitted
that the Government failed to direct who
small pay TINS tax, the purpose OF the law
being fully subserved if all evidences of
transactions bear the proper stamp, it
matters not who shall bear the burden of
At this point Mr. Sutro endeavored to
impress his contention upon the court that
the law was framed for the purpose of Sc
curing the attention and service of the
corporations in enforcing the law and
compelling the people to obey It's man
dates. Quotations from decision rem
dered by Judge Morrow, in which 1t was
held that in the opinion of the court the
penalty imposed upon telegraph compa-
MES of $40 for accepting unstamped mes
sages and 500 upon individuals presenting
unstamped messages was for the purpose
of compelling senders of messages to bear
the tax, the penalty imposed upon the
company for accepting unstamped mes
sages having as it's object the securing of
corporate assistance to enforce the law.
He claimed that the case was analogous
with that at bar, but Judge Trout drew
a distinction between message clearly of
interest between the sender, who prepared
such message. and the receiver, while a
bill of lading or manifest was prepared
by the express company and issued for
the joint benefit of the company and the
shipper In answer to this Mr.. Sutro
quoted from section of the war revenue
law, which reads That on and after the
1st day of July, 1898, there shall be levied,
collected and paid for and in respect of
the several bonds, debentures or certih-
Gates of stock and of Indebtedness, and
ether documents instruments, matters
and things mentioned and described in
schedule A of this act, or for or in respect
of the vellum, parchment or paper upon
which such instruments, matters or
things, or any of them, shall be written
or printed by any person or persons or
party who shall make, sign or issue the
same, or for whose use or benefit the same
shall be made, signed of issued, the sew
eral taxes or sums of money set down in
figures against the same, respectively, or
otherwise specified or set forth in the said
schedule"
The words included in this section ''by
any person or persons or party who shall
make, sign or issue the same, or for whose
use or benefit the same shall be made,
Mr.. Sutro contended, plainly imposed the
burden on the people. Under Judge
Troutt's distinction however. the COM
pany was the maker" and issued the
instrument, and was equally beneficiary.
The manifest or bill of lading being nee
esSary for the successful conduct of It's