The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-30
HIGH COURT DECISIONS
CASE INVOLVING ASSESSMENTS FOR
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
Supreme Justices of Opinion that n
'CaIl- Is an Agreement "a Sell
and May BE Taxed.

WASHINGTON. April 2e.-In the United
States Supreme Court decisions were hand
ed down to-day I'm a number OF cases ir-
volving the constitutionality of municipal
legislation authorizing assessments for
street improvements. The opinions were
read by Justice Shiras. The principal one
was In the case of the District % Column
ola VS.. Davidson. on appeal from a deci-
sion by tn Court of Appeals for the Dis
trict of Columbia. In that case the court
laid down n principle governing all the
cases, saying: 1T was within the power
OF Congress, by the act OF 1899. 20 order the
opening and extension of the streets I'm
question and to direct the commissioners
OF the District Of Columbia TO institute
and conduct proceedings I'm the Supreme
Court OF the District OF Columbia TO con-
denim the necessary land; and II was also
competent for Congress 10 provide that
the amount found due and awarded as
damages for and in respect of the land
condemned for the opening of said streets,
not less than one-half thereof should be
assessed by the jury in said proceedings
against the pieces and parcels of land
which will be benefited by the opening of
said streets. as provided for I'm the said
act. and that the sums TO be assessed
against each lot or piece or parcel of
ground should be determined and desig-
mated by the jury, and that in determining
what amount should be assessed against
any particular piece or parcel OF ground
the jury should take into consideration
the situation of said lots and the benefit
that they might severally receive from
the opening of said streets. 1t is also
established that I'm proceedings OF this
nature notice by publication is sufficient. y
Justices Harlan, White and Mckenna dis
scented.
The Supreme Court decided I'm the case
brought by ex-Congressman stephen v.
White, of Brooklyn. that a call as the
word is used In the Stock Exchange, is an
agreement 10 sell and therefore subject 10
taxation at the rate OF , cents per hundred
dollars under the war revenue law. rhe
opinion was handed down by Justice Brew
er, who, defining a call, said: Calls are not
distributed as mere advertisements of what
the owner of the property described therein
is willing TO do. They are held and I'm part
ing with them. the vendor receives what to
him is satisfactory consideration. Having
parted for value received with that prom
Use. IL Is a contract binding on him, and
such a contract Is neither more nor less
than an agreement 10 sell and deliver at
lifetime named the property described I'm the
Instruments. 1t may be n unilateral con-
tract. So are many contracts. ON the face
OF this instrument there Is an absolute
promise TO sell We cannot doubt the con-
clusinn CT the circuit Judge that this is. I'm
Its terms. It's essence and its nature. an
agreement to sell. Therefore, 1t comes
within the letter OF the statute. There is
nothing to suggest that Congress did not
mean that this provision should be en-
forced according to its letter and spirit
everywhere Tie language OF the statute
seems TO us clear. II imposes a stamp
duty on agreements TO sell. We see moth
ing n the surroundings which j~ustiies us
in limiting the power of Congress or de-
nying TO it's language its ordinary mean
ing. therefore. we answer the question
submitted to us by the Circuit Court OF
Appeals I'm the affirmative and hold that "A
call Is an agreement TO sell and taxable as
such.
The court restored 10 the docket for re-
argument the case OF Charles Il. Champion.
OF Chicago. and also granted the petition
for n writ of ccrtiorari In the case OF John
Francis, OF Cincinnati. Both are lottery
cases. The Champion case involves
the constitutionality of the act OF
Congress forbidding express compa-
MES from circulating -ottery matter.
Ii was argued. early In March. by Assist
ant Attorney General James NJ. Beck. for
the government. and w. ID. Guthrie for
the defendant. In addition To the question
as to whether n lottery ticket Is an article
OF commerce and subject TO congressional
legislation the important question was also
raised as 10 whether the right 10 regulate
included the right To prohibit
altogether In a given article.
The case, probably, will not be- reargued
until next autumn.
After announcing various opinions and
hearing a number OF motions to-day the
court took an adjournment until Monday.
the 18th prox. The meeting then will be
only for the announcement OF opinions.