The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-30
DECLARED TO Be TAXABLE
A Supreme Court Decision Regard
ing Calls" in Stocks.
Held to Bc Agreements to Sell and
Liable to the stamp Duty Under
the LAVA Constitutional Point
Involved in IN AIasISn Mining Case

/
The United States Supreme Court yes
terday decided in the case brought by ex-
Representative Stephen V. White OF
| brooklyn, that a cali as the word is
used in the stock exchange is an agree
ment to sell, and therefore subject to
! taxation at the rate of two cents per Sl0C
under the War Revenue law.
Justice Brewer said the question was
simply one of statutory construction. Was
cali an agreement to sell within the
| meaning of the War Revenue act? He
concurred in the opinion of the court be
low that it was. 1t might be referred
to us an offer. or an option, or call, or
what not. but 1t was susceptible of no
more exact definition than an agreement
to sell. Calls" were not distributed as
mere advertisements of what the owner
of the property described therein was
willing to do. They were sold. and, in
parting with them the vender received
what to him was satisfactory considera-
ton. Having parted for value received
with that promise it was contract blnd-
ing on him, and such n contract was
neither more nor less than an agreement
to sell and deliver at the time named the
property described in the instrument.
1t. might be a unilateral contract. So
were many contracts. On the face OF the
call there was an absolute promise on
the part of the prumiser and promise
to sell. This, in it's terms, its essence,
and its nature, was an agreement to sell.
and therefore came within the letter of
the statute.
AS to the contention of the defendant
that the words Of the law which do not
taken in their ordinary grammatical
sense, Justice Brewer said the court fully
agreed With that proposition. There must
be certainty as to the meaning and scope
of language imposing any tax. and doubt
as to its meaning was resolved in favor
of the taxpayer. The court did not ques-
tion the fact that there were times when
the mere letter of a statute did not con-
troll and that q fair consideration of the
surroundings might indicate that that
which was within the letter was not
within the spirit and therefore must be
excluded from its scope. But that propo-
sition implied that there was something
which made clear an attempt on the part
of Congress against enforcement accord
ing to the letter. Nothing of that kind
existed in this case. There was moth
ing to suggest that Cong ess did not mean
that this provision should be enforced
where.
The defendant in error had said that
Congress must be assumed to nave been
familiar with the ordinary modes ON
the New York StOci Exchange, and that
if it intended by its legislation to reach
calls" term well understood in that
exchange, it would have named them or
used some word which necessarily in
cluded them.
1t was not to be assumed, said Justice
Brewer. that Congress legislated with sole
reference to transactions on stock ex-
changes, but its action was TO be taken
as for the whole nation and If II should
happen that dealings on any stock ex-
change came within the purview thereof.
the parties so dealing were bound by II
and could NOT claim an immunity from
its burden. An isolated agreement to sell
stocks made by an individual in Texas
was an agreement to sell, subject TO the
stamp duty imposed. 1t was none the
less an agreement to sell when made in
the stock exchange of New York as one
of a large multitude of similar transac-
tions.
That there was a difference between
an agreement TO sell and an agreement
of sale was clear. The latter might imply
not merely an obligation to sell but an
obligation on the part OF the otner party
to purchase, while an agreement to sell
was simply an obligation on the part of
the vender or pFomiser to complete his
promise of sale. That Congress recog-
niZed these two terms was evident, be-
cause in the very next paragraph of
Schedule it provided in reference to
merchandise, for stamp upon each
sale, agreement Of sale, or agreement to
SELL That no stamp duty was imposed
on agreements to buy, or puts" furnished
no ground for denying the validity of the
stamp duty on agreements 10 sell The
power of Congress in this direction was
unlimited. 1t did not come within the
province of the Supreme Court to con-
slider why agreements TO sell should be
subject to stamp duty, and agreements to
pnOlllyh In
this Legislation had imposed a stamp duty
upon the one and not upon the other
Thelanguage of the statute seemed clear
1t imposed stamp duty on agreements TO
sell, and as calls were agreements to
sell. they We're taxable as such
The court granted a writ of certiorari
ment of the United States Circuit Court
OF Appeals in the cfSe of S. NJ. Lawder
S Sons, of Baltimore, against the col
lector of customs at that pOrC. affirming
the action of the collector in leVying duty
on the portion of a cargo of pineapples
which had been damaged on the voyage.
The so-called St. Gall cases, which have
been before the customs authorities at
New York and in the courts for several
years, involving the classification of i'm
ported embroideries, were denied hear
ing by the Supreme Court, the petition
of Loeb & Schoenfeld, importers for a
writ of certiorari from the judgment of
the Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of
the Government being refused. This ac-
ton in effect makes the decision of the
lower court in this case final.
The petition for writ of certiOrari was
granted in the case of the Russian Con-
sui at Philadelphia against the United
States, growing out Of the desertiOn Of
AleXandron, an assistant surgeon on the
Russian cruiser Nariag, and who was
released from custody on writ of habeas
corpus. The case involves a construction
of the treaty between Russia and the
United States, as affecting the arrest and
rights Of deserters. 1t VIII be heard at
the fall term.
Solicitor General Richards moved that
the case of A w. Corbus against the
Alaska Tredwen Gold Mining Company
be restored to docket While the United
States Attorney for Alaska had appeared
in the original case, the Department of
Justice, he said. had not been notified
But as a constitutional question was in
vOlved and the revenues of the Govern
ment were also affected. he wished to file
a brief on behalf Of the administration
The court granted the permission
The main point at issue is the constitu-
of the provision of the Alaska
code passed by Congress in 1893 imposing
a tax of 50 per year on each ore stamp
and $3.50 a year on mercantile CORPORA
tions. Corbus, who is a stockhoider in
the company, brought suit in the Alaska |
District Court to restrain the company |
from paying the mercantile tax and the |
tax on $40 stamps in the mill at Douglass
Island. Alaska. His ground of objection |
was that those taxes We're null and void |
for the reason that they were not appor- /
toned according to the population Of the |
United States and were not uniform !
the United States as the Con |
provides. In addition the taxes |