New-York tribune., 1900-04-17
EXPRESS COMPANIES WIN.
SHIPPERS MUST PAY FOR THE STAMPS. ON
RECEIPTS

washington. April 1.-THE Supreme Court TODAY
oecloeo the cases involving the stamp tax on ex-
press packages, the question being whether the
shipper or the carrier shall pay the charge The
opinion was handed down by Justice White and
was favorable 10 the express companies There
were two cases before the Court. but the opinion
was based on the case of the American Eynress
Company against the Acknowledgement of Mich
igan Tbs Supreme Court of Michigan decided
against the express companies The opinion ,o
DAY reversed this decision
The original proceeding consisted of prayer for p
Haanoafnus commanding the company receive
PACKAGES Tor transportation by express and 10 issue
receipts with stamp duly cancelled without seek
ing 10 compel shippers TO pay for the stamp The
express company contended that the question as to
VINO should pay for the stamp one for adjust
Eent between the shipper and the company II
was also alleged that the company had in effect
increased its rates on each shipment by adding to
the previous rates the sum OF the stamp tax.
Against this increase IT was declared there was
no Inhibition in the act Of Congress Justice White
said that il was unnecessary TO consider whether
the law forDids the express companies TO require
The shipper 10 furnish the stamp. since it would
lot be decisive Of the case. if should con-
oeded thar the act imposes the company the
duty Of paying the tax. 1t essential, he said
also, TO ascertain whether the forbids the
pany from shifting the burden of the by means
Of an increase OF rates. The whole decision, there
fore, turned the construction OF the law this
point Quoting the section OF the law imposing
the tax express company receipts, Justice White
sac:
There is nothing in this provision which by the
widest conjecture ne construed expressly
forbidding the person upon whom the taxes are
cast from shifting the same by contract or by any
0ther lawful means.
- The contention in behalf of the shippers, he
tnued, amounts saying that the act is not mere
y for levying taxes but is a statute deter
mining that the burden must irrevocably continue
z rest the whom it is primarily placed.
The result follows he said that ali contracts
CT acts shifting the burden and which should be
otherwise valid become void. To add by implica-
Ton such provision to a tax would be contrary
e its intent, and be in conflict with the general OBJ
,set which a laN evying taxes is naturally pre-
s3neo 10 efeCtuate-''
The opinion also dispOSes Of the contention that
ne lax should be imposed the express compa-
Ats because they common carriers, and there
.Ge should bear their share Of the burden OF the
9k Unquestiona5 5ly,' he said on this point, "a
Gtaef IS subject TO the requirement OF reasonable
ssifa but question OF the unrea sonableness OF
tae rates charged arises on this record or Is at
@s1s N this cause
sgIrene Court of Michigan reversed.
The case Of the Adams Express Company, com
ag from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the lid
Nlregit was also decided in favor of the company.
Justices Harlan and McKenna dissented from the
yflnlon in TIE Michigan case on the ground that
lie War Revenue act imposed upon the express
company the duty not only Of affiXing at its own
eEpense the required stamp upon any receipt issued
z! \ 10 z shipper. of canCelllng such stamp.