The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-04-04

1
! 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
| all ovtr the country, the size of the chief
institution only serving to increase its
Importance.
1T is common knowledge that these ex-
changes encourage and promote honest
and fair dealing among their members;
that they provide penalties for the viola
ton of their rules in that regard and that
contracts between members relating 10
business on the exchange have the advan-
tags Of the sanction provided by the ex-
changt for such purposes.
''Nor is there any doubt that these ex-
changes facilitate transactions of purchase
and sale. and it would seem that such
facilities or privileges, even though not
granted by the governmtnt or by state,
ought nevertheless 10 be recognized as ex-
isting facts, and TO be subjects of the
Judgment Of congress as fit matters for
taxation.
The tax" he said, SIS not dirtct tax
within the meaning of the constitution
but it is in the nature of a duty or ex-
else. The amount of such a tax when i'm
posed in a case like this may be increased
or diminished by the txtent to which the
privilege or facility is used and it is fixed
in this act by the value of the property
transferred by means of using such privi-
lege or facility; but this does not make the
tax direct one.
I'VE do not see that any material diff
ference exists when the sale is for future
delivery. The thing agreed TO be sold is
the same whether for immediate or future
delivery"
On the point of discrimination 1t was re-
marked that "a purchase occurs whenever
a sale is effected, and to say that a pur-
chaser at an exchange sale must be taxed
for the facilities made use of in making
the purchase or else that the tax on the
seller is void, is simply to insist upon
doubling the tax. Nor is it necessary to
tax the use of the privilege under all cir
cumstances in order to render the tax
valid upon its use in particular cases. We
see no reason why it should be necessary
to tax a privilege whenever it is used for
any purpose or else not to tax it at all
It is not in its nature indivisible.
''1n holding that the tax under consid-
Grafton is a tax on the privilege used in
making sales at an exchange, we thereby
hold that it is not tax upon the memo
randum required by the statute upon
which the stamp is to be placed. The act
does not assume in any manner to inter-
fere with the laws of the state in rela-
ton to the contract of sale.
Though congress might have adopted
some other means for collecting the tax
which would prove less troublesome or
annoying to the taxpayer, Their can surely
be no reason for holding that the method
set forth in the act renders the tax in
valid. The means must be a question for
congress alone.
In the matter of the petition for writ of
habeas corpus, the petition was denied
while in the other cases the judgments of
the courts and district courts were at
flrmed.
The court decided the act Of 1882 consti-
tutional in the stote bank cases from
Owensboro, KY, affirming the opinion of
the Kentucky court OF appeals. The case
Of the Owensboro National bank versus
the city of Owensboro involved other
points and in this court the Kentucky
court of appeals was overruled
In the Henderson Bridge company and
Louisville and Nashville Railroad company
versus the city of Henderson, the state
law was upheld and the state court of ap-
peals was affirmed.
In passing upon the caseee of Darwin
c. Allen versus the Southern Pacific Rail-
way company, Justice White took occa-
sion to set the lawyers OF the country
right upon the question of the time in
which writs of errors from the supreme
court to the state courts can be taken,
many of them appearing to think that
they cannot be allowed after the expira-
ton Of one year. This. ne said, was erro-
neous. the statute by which they appear
to be guided applying to the circuit court
of appeals ond not TO the state courts
This case involved about eighty contracts
for the purchase OF land and was dis
missed for want of Jurisdiction.
The court decided the somewhat unex-
plotted question of the liability of sail
ing vessels for excessive speed in case Of
collision in foggy weather. The case in
vOlved the collision of the American
steamship Chattahoochee and the Cana
dian schooner Golden Rule off Nantucket
shoals in 1894, whereby the schooner was
sunk. Both vessels were proceeding at top
speed in fog when the accident occurred. |
The court below held that as the Golden !
Rule as we'll as the Chattahoochee had |
failed to slow down. It was equally liable |
for the disaster and therefore held the |
owners of the steamer responsible for one /
half the damage done. Justice Brown rem |
dered the opinion OF the supreme court ar I
frming this decision. remarking that cit /
Is not perceived why the considerations /
which demand a slackening OF speed upon /
the part Of the steamers are not equally /
persuasive in the case Of sailing vessels" |
The chief justice and Justice Peckham l
dissented
Chicago, ILL.,, April 3.-George F. Stone. |
secretary Of the Chicago board of trade. |
was much interested today in the su- /
preme court decision sustaining the valid |
ity of the war revenue act. He said. how |
ever. that he had vet received no official
notice Of the decision and he was unable 4
at present 10 say what action would be /
taken in the matter by the Chicago board |
or trade Inquiry by the Associated Press I
among others familiar with board OF trade /
methods developed the fact that no at
tempt has been made 10 evade the revenue 4
tax on the Chicago exchange. but that
there has been a question as 70 whether
brokers must pay a tax on every trade /
made in the pit or. by a system OF trans
fers. could eliminate a number q inter
mediate transactions. the tax falling upon