The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-13

The full text of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Louisa Kidd. executrix against the State of Alabama has been received by Colonel Harvey E. Jones, State Tax Commissioner
 The case 1t will be recalled was an at. tack on the back tax law and the opinion which was rendered by Mir. Justice Holmes vindicated the contention of the State.
 The case was styled Louisa V. Kidd, as Executrix of the will of H. B. Tulane vs. the State of Alabama.
 H. B. Tulane whose estate was involved in the suit to resist the payment of taxes levied, under the back tax law, was a wealthy resident of Elmore County, when he died in October. 1897. Certain shares of the stock of corporations not organized under the laws of Alabama and not hay ing any property in Alabama were assess ed by the State as having escaped taxa ton. This was resisted by the executrix the Court of County Commission CTS. but 1t was vacated by the Circuit Court of Elmore County. A new trial of the cause was, however. granted and the courts action was reversed on new pleas.
 lnls ldSt JuuBIteHt W dilriuco py tns Supreme Court of Alabama, from which the executrfx appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
 Text of the Opinion.
 The opinion in full Is as follows:
 This is an action for taxes brought by the State of Alabama against the exeo- utrix of the will of q citizen of Ala bama. It appears on the record that the property in dispute is stock in railroads incorporated in other States than Ala bama, and that the objection was taken seasonably by plea and by requests for Instructions to the jury that the tax was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, because no similar tax was levied on the stock of domestic railroads or of foreign railroads doing business in that State. Demurrers to the pleas were sustained, there was a verdict for the plaintiff and judgment, which later was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State without discussion on the authority of its decision at an earlier stage, State brought here by writ of error.
 The statutes levying the tax sn oues- ton are the Code of 1ss6 Section 45s, cl. 13. and the Code of 1896. Section epi. cl. l4. They are general clauses which need not be set forth. as thetr eject is not to them by the Supreme Court of the State. The exemption by the Code of 1S86 of stock in domestic railroads, and in others that list substantially all their property for taxation. (Sturges V. Car ter, IA U. s. 61, 62a) is not denied, and while 1t Is denied by the defendant in error that there ts a similar exemption by the Code of 1896. for the purposes of decision we shall assume, without ex- animation. that 1t Is granted. State V. Kidd. 12s Ala, As. 422 On this assump- tion the argument for the plaintiff in error is that if foreign stock Is treated for pur- poses of taxation as present by fiction in the domicile. 1t must be treated as present also for purposes of protection. that the tax is a tax on values, and that net values of similar articles must be treated alike. It is said that you cannot look further back.
 If the argument went further and de- nied the right 10 tax on fiction at all, and therefore denied the right to tax foreign stocks, it would seem to us to have more logical force, although we are far from implying that 1t would be un- answerable or that it can be regarded as open. Very likely such taxes can be Justified without the help of fiction. sturges V. Carter. 114 U. s. 61l; Dwigh t