The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-03-02
EXCISE ] 5,
mot AJAX | " I.
Naturalization Drawn by tho
Court9 Of Claiiiis In South
Carolina Case, 553
COMMERCIAL I. BUSINESS 3, ] 81 |! IS,
,T'hs State Stands on the Same
Footing With Any Other
Dealer.
tBy AIS ciuted 1'res5.j

j. Az 49,
UNSATISFACTORY, y. c.. March 1.-The
opinion OF the majority Of tho Court Of
4 Claims, delivered BY Chief Justice Mott.
diminishing the stiff brought by tho State
5of South Carolina against tho United
States Ito recover money paid by the
state az special taxes for the sale OF
liquors at dispensarics, was made public
to-day This. tho opinion says, is be-
lieved to BIO the first case brought before
d court In which asState has united In
ono Undertaking an exercise of the police
power with commercial business. Tho
court decides that the excise tax Is not
mn interference with the States police
q power. AS to5the contention that the
Federal government cannot tax the States
or their Observation-Disclosures OF govern
nent, Hs upheld IN tho income@t tax cases,
tho opinion says that between the prlr,-
&ciplo involved In them and the principle
involved IN this case, there seems 10
distinctions. Tho first distinction Is
fundamental. Tho money oxacted here
q is not n direct tax. but ar excise. The
theory upon which the constitutional
provision rests Is that an cxcise upon
salablc nrticles Is paid by the purchaser.
LIKE ANY OTHER DEALER.
THE state OF South Carolina here
stands on precisely the same footing
which every other dealer stands upeA.l
All that It has TO dolls tokadd the In
8ternal 8rcvcr,ie excise to the price Of the
liquor which It sells, and let the pur-
chaser pas It, ssts IA Fl,
Tho second distinction is that in tho
income tax cases n tax had been extend,
cd to "a function strictly belonging" to
IL state. I'm its ordinary governmental.
4 capacity" |. In this connection 4 the dc.5
gcision says:
& "Insthis case now before us the money,
csacted by the United States was not
paid BY the taxpayers OF South Caro-
Ina but by purchasers Ut ITS dispcn-y
pares: and 1t was not expended for or!
djEary governmental purposes. but nst
incident to carrying on Its commercial
business. The court does not question
the power of tho State TO carry on this
business, and does not doubt that the
proceeds of5the business lessen the taxes
of the taxpayers. All that It decides is
that the business of the dspensary was.
enthusiastically. business and not govern
nlent: and being business was subject to
the same national tax which is born
by all other persons engaged In the sd me
business
RIGHT OF THE STATE. 81
The third distinction, the opinion says,
Is that in the income tax cases the
money being raised for government tai pur-s
roses and expended upon governmental,
purposes, the purposes though not de-
fined were in their nature limited. IN
E,hs case there seems no such limitation
3,Crifs opinion further says ISL; ~ s-F
I 1.-THE more this subject Is studied, tic
i1narc clearly 1t appears to the court that
Atlu Stnte has II right to the exercise Of
5l,,s police power, and right to the use
}ntall proper tnstrumcntalities OF govern
INIT and n right to enter into this com
,nrcal business OF buying and selling
Il a profit; but that mono Of these
,thts can be exercised as an evasion
oEtho national governments right to,
iposc an excise tax and tossubject all
d ,1fsons, whether States or private cor
1rations or individual dealers, to the
SINE law.'