The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-13
U. 5. SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS
 THE ALABAMA BACK TAX LAW
Full Text Of the Opinion of Justice Holmes in Case
 of the State Against Mrs. Kidd.

V. Boster, 1e Allen 316; Dyer V Osborne, Il R. l. 321. But the argument does not go to that extent and, limited as 1t is, the proposition that plaintiff in error is denied the equal protection of the laws for the reason which we have stated, strikes us as wholly without force. We see nothing to prevent State from tax ing stock In some domestic corporations and leaving stock in others others untaxsd ,ha 1.oG on erty and franchises of the latter to an amount that imposes in- direct proportional burden on rations formed and having their property and business elsewhere, the State must tax the stock held within the State If 1t is to tax anything, and we now are as- suming the right to tax stock in foreign corporations to be conceded. If 1t does tax that stock 1t may take into account that the property and franchise of the corporation are untaxed on the same ground that 1t might do the same thing with domestic corporation. There Is no rule that the State cannot look behind the present net values of different stocks. See American Refining Co. V. Louisiana, 179 U. s. S9.
 We say that the State in taxing stock may take into account the fact that the property and franchises of the corporation are untaxed. whereas in other eases they are taxed; and we say untaxed, because they are not taxed by the State in ques- ton. The real grievance in case like the present is that, more than probably they are taxed elsewhere. But with that the State of Alabama is not concerned. No doubt 1t would be a great advantage to the country and to the individual States If principles of taxation could be agreed upon which did not conflict with each other and a common scheme could be adopted by which taxation @ Of suSstan tsNa,n tions could be avoided. But the Consti- tuition of the United States does not go so far. Coe V. Errol, 116 U. S. bl7, 524; Knowlton V. Moore, IFS U. s. fl Dyer V. Osborne, il R. I. s2l. S27 Cooley, Taxation, 2d ed. 22, n. One aspect of the problem was touched in the case of Blackstone V. Miller. at the present term. The State of Alabama is not bound to make It's laws harmonize in principle with those of oth- laws, then for the purpose of its laws the property is not taxed at all.
 ''It is said that the State may not tax a man because by fiction his property is within the Jurisdiction, and then discrim- mate against him upon the fact that 1t is without. The State does nothing of the kind It adheres throughout to the fic- ton. If 1t be one. that the stock, the property of the plaintiff In error, Is with in the jurisdiction. There is no inconsis- tency in the States recognizing at the same time that the property of the cor poration, that which gives the plaintiff s stock its value. is taxed or untaxed, as the case may be. There Is no inconsis- tency in recognising that 1t is untaxed because it cannot be reached. Shares of stock may be within a State, and the property of the corporation outside 1t.
 Ne need not repeat the commonpiaces as to the large latitude allowed to the States for classification upon any reason able basis. Pacific Express Co. V. Sci bert. 142 U. s. Sss, sSl. sS2; Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Co. V Ellis, 16b U. 521; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- way CO. V. Matthews. 174 U. s. 96; Amer ican Sugar Refining Go. V. Louisiana. l79 U. S. s9 What is reasonable Is ques- ton of practical details, into which fic- ton cannot enter.
 Practically the law before us, in the broad aspect in which we alone are asked to consider it. seems to us to work out substantial justice and equality, if we leave on one side the probable taxation by other States which does not affect the State of Alabama's rights.
 Judgment affirmed"
 Justices Harlan and White dissented.