The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-11-12
Atlanta Attorney Parses Sec
ton of Revenue Act.
TAX ON PACKING HOUSES
Argument Of Attorney Geneal Gi liner tor
State d Mr.. Tnos B. Fielder or At
Ianta, for Armour Co, Assisted
bY Mr., las. H. Pou.

peal was heard in the case of b. r. Lacy,
state Treasurer OF North Carolina VS.. Ar
mouc Packing Company, of Kansas City,
Kan, involving the constitutionaiity of
section Sc of the Revenue Act passed by
the last Legislature, imposing tax OF
500 In each county upon every meat
packing house dong business in the State.
Attorney General Gilmer appeared for
ia, Ca, represented the Armour Packing
Company as general counsel, assisted by
Messrs. Pou & Fuller, of this city.
The appeal came from Asheville, where
the Armour Packing Company has prop
erty, consisting of cold storage plants and
warehouses; 1t was controversy with
out action in the Buncombe county court,
it being an agreed test case. Some of the
facts agreed upon are as follows:
The company does not anywhere within
the State of North Carolina slaughter,
dress, cure. pack or manufacture any pro-
ducts of any animal. for food. or for COM
mercial use or for other purposes. Some
of these products are shipped, after being
prepared in Kansas City, to Wilmington,
Greensboro Asheville, Charlotte and Fay
etteville, where the company has cold stor-
age plants and warehouses. From these
plants come of the products are sold and
distributed. Other products are shipped
into the State on orders from commission
men. All of the products are shipped into
the State of North Carolina for the mere
purpose of sale, and not for REIMBURSEMENT
of the proceeds arising therefrom. Said
proceeds are RENTED to the head office at
Kansas City as collected. In these cities
there are commission merchants in COM
petition with the Armour Company, and
they are not amenable to the tax.
Mr.. Fielder, III his brief for the Armour
Company, analysed according to gramati-
cal rules the section of the Revenue Act
in question, az follows: There is no gram
NAUTICAL error in the act under considera-
ton, and it is not without meaning as it
stands. Therefore, its true grammatical
construction ought to elucidate its true
meaning. Let us then analyZe the single
sentence composing the act under consid-
GRAFTON. It's language is: Section So
Packing Houses. Upon every meat pack
ing house doing business in this State,
500 for each county in which said bust
ness is carried on
I'm Reed & Kellogg's work on English
Grammar and Composition, called Higher
Lessons in English published in 1900, on
page SO, phrase is defined to be: "A
group of words denoting related ideas, but
having distinct office, but not express
ing thought.
Under this definition, the group OF
words in the act meat packing houses do
ing business in this State constitutes
defendant adjective clause. (See Higher
Lessons in English, p. 1922
1.-The rule is Ubid, p. 1860 The adj
jective cause when not restricted is set
off by the comma
.'This clause, not being set off by the
comma, is restrictive of packing houses,
the subject Immediately preceding it.
1.-The whole opening phrase of the SEN
tence includes corporations or persons OF
a particular kind, to-wit: meat packing
houses doing business in this State
"The only kind of business included in
this sentence is meat packing house bus
mess carried on in this State 1t follows
that the words said business in the last
clause of the sentence means the same
business referred to in the opening phrase.
L
business in the first cause meant the
business of meat packing houses, while in
the last clause, it meant the business of
selling the products of packing house.
1.-The true grammatical meaning of the
whole sentence. supplying in brackets all
words necessarily understood is thus ex-
pressed: Upon every meat packing house
(said meat packing house doing business
IN this State), 800 in each county where
said (meat packing house, business is car
ried on
Mr.. Fielder summed up by submitting
that the act in question was void so far
as his company was concerned, for the
following reasons:
First. Because the plaintiff IN error
is not engaged in doing a packing house
business in the State of North Carolina,
under the agreed state of facts contained
in the record
Second. Because said act is obnoxious
to article 5, section 3, of the Constitution
of the State of North Carolina, which pro-
vides, Laws shall be passed for taxing
by an uniform rule
Third. I'VE insist that the act in con-
troversy is repugnans to the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which provides that no
State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privilege and immunl-
ties OF any citizen of the United States,
nor shall any State deprive any person OF
life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law. nor deny to any one within
the jurisdiction the equal protection OF the
law
Fourth. "Said act is violativc OF the
statutes of the United States which reg
ulate Interstate Commerce, for the reason
that the burden of this tax is not alone
upon Intrastate Commerce but upon In
terstate Commerce.
Fifth. 1--WE contend finally that to sim
gle out meat packing houses and place
upon them the burden of this tax, reiev-
ing their competitors from the payment
thereof. and thereby giving to the COM
petitors or Plaintiff in Error the advant-