The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-11
CAN 7 COLLECT
TELEGRAPH TAX
The Western Union Gets
Injunction.
BY JUDGE SlMONTON
North Cardinals Tax of twenty-five
Cents a Mile on Telegraph Line
is Declared as Contrary to
Interstate Commerce


The temporary injunction asked by the
Western Union Telegraph Company to
keep the State from collecting certain
taxes from it has been granted.
The complaint of the Western Union
was made through its attorney, Fab II.
Busbee, and this went before Judge
Charles H. Simonton, of Charleston. of
the Circuit Court. The taxes paid were
claimed to be exorbitant and burdensome,
and in violation of interstate commerce.
The injunction asked for was granted,
and in the order fled here yesterday from
Judge Simonton, he sets forth the matter
at some length and decides that the North
Carolina statute imposing a tax OF %
cents per mile of wire is not valid tax,
and is burden on interstate commerce.
The order in full reads as follows:
Western Union Telegraph Co.
3. +. Lacy as Treasurer of
the State OF North Carolina. ct al.
This is a bill filed for the purpose of
onjoining tax alleged to be illegally as
SCSSeu upon the cCmpIdinduI.
The Western Union Telegraph Com
pany, corporation organized under the
laws of Ne York. has been engaged for
very man years in transmitting mes
sages by telegraph in and through many
States of the Union, and as to is bust
ness between the States is an instrument
in Interstate Commerce CIV. U. Tele-
graph Co. VS.. Texas los Z. S. 400, Pen
7 To1 N
L. S. u. 1t has its poles and wires in
the State OF North Carolina; and in that
State does large business interstate
and mira, the former predominating
greatly over the latter. This company
has heretofore complied with the laws OF
North Carolina (Section 40, Public Laws
OF North Carolina, 1903, chapter 251), and
has made the returns required therein.
and has paid the tax levied under an as
sessment then made, notwithstanding that
the said taxes are very heavy, and not
understanding that the said taxes are very
hcavy, and notwithstanding doubts as to
the mode OF assessment. Recently, how
ever. by an Act entitled AN Act to
amend Chapter 3, Public Laws for 1901, in
Relation to Raising Revenue, ratified
March 9, 1908, Public Laws of 1903, Chap
ter 247, it is enacted that there shall be
paid by every telegraph company doing
business III the State an annual license
tax as follows: ''by every tele-
graph company an amount equal to TWEEN
tyfve cents on each mile of wire such
Company operates within the State"
The bill charges that this license tax
being levied as a condition precedent for
doing business in the State, is Il burden
on all OF its business interstate IS we'll
as mira State. and so that it is uT.con-
stitutional and invalid.
The crucial question in this case there
Nore is: Is Il statute which imposes q
tax as 4 general license tax upon a tele
graph company doing both an interstate
and an mira State business for the priv
legc of doing business in the State
a valid tax OF is it a burden on Inter
STAT Commerce?
This subject is exhaustiyely treated in
a very recent decision of the Supreme
Court. Allen VS.. Pullman Palace Car
Co. "a Supreme Court Reporter October
term, 1903, p. Al. 1t is there held that
such a license tax imposed for doing bust
I,css was burden upon Interstate Com
rerce, there being no words limiting it to
mira State business. Supporting its con
clusion the Supreme Court cites and re-
&ffrms Leloup VS.. Port Of Mobile, 127
U. S. 6i0, and Pckard vs.. Pullman, III
L. S. "a saying; 1.-The statute now I'M
der consideration requires payment OF