Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1905-07-24

ings were to be ascertained by such
return, the legislature has clearly ex'
pr essed it's intent that the amount OF
the license fee was no longer to be de-
termined wholly from the return. The
other changes made at the same time
are in accord with the intent SO ex-
pressed.
There is nothing in the statute as
it now stands that is contrary to this
manifest intent of the. legislature
The only amount mentioned is the
true statement of the gross earnings
1ae whole legislative plan is based on
the assumption that the return Shall
contain such true statement. On the
railroad is placed the duty and the re-
sponsibility of making sucn true re-
turn. This return in substance takes
the place of the sworn statement
which the individual taxpayer is re-
CURED to make as the basis for the as
sessment Of his taxes (sec. 1850. AS
in the case of the individual (sec
1056a), SO in the case of the railroad
(sec.121N, penalty is imposed for
failure to make a true statement.
knowingly Omitted Earnings.
ct appears from the facts stipulated
that the defendant knowingly and in
teEtionally omitted a substantial por-
ton of it's gross earnings, relying on
the advice of counsel. To determine
whether this advice is defense, the
fair meaning of the statute must be
gathered, looking at the object and
purpose for which it was enacted.
Turning to me statutes impo5ing penal
ties for not making a true statement
for the purposes of taxation, we find
that the statutes in certain cases eX
pressly provide that SUCH penalty shall
be imposed if the taxpaye Intentionally
(sec. 1056a) or wilfully (secs. 1920,
1920 refuses or neglects to make such
true statement. There is nothing in
the corresponding section relating to
railroads (sec. 1214) that suggests That
intent is an essential element in order
that the penalty may be imposed. Had
the legislature intended to make proof
of w1lful Or Intentional omission essen,
tial to the recovery of the penalty, it
would have so provided in section 1914,
as it did in sections 1056a, 1920 and
1921. Section 1921 is in exact accord
with this construction of section 1914
It imposes the penalty for: ID Neg
lect to make tle report, (2) neglect to
pay the license fee or any part there
OF, and 60 neglect to make a true
statement ii. e., making false report)
'"The statutes do not in express
terms impose a penalty for failure to
return a true statement of the gross
earnings These statutes must be
strictly construed. State v. Wolfrum,
8 Wis 4S1, 4S3. But when we consider
the history of section 1914 and
examine it in the light of the other
sections dealing with kindred topics
the legislative intent to impose the
penalty under the facts disclosed by
the stipulation appears too plain to ad-
nit of any strict construction that wifi
amount to change of the manifest
purpose of the law. State V. Nelson,
Ill Wis. 394, 399.
"The conclusion follows That section
1914 imposes the penalty under the cir
cumstances disclosed by the stipula-
ticn
Statute Constitutional.
"Constitutionality of License Fee
Statutes. The supreme court of this
state has expressly left open the ques.
ton Of whether the statutes imposing
these license fees are in conflict with
the commerce clause of the federal
constitution. State v. Pullman Palace
Can Company, Ga Wis. SO. The numer-
Gus dissenting opinions in the cases in
volving this question decided by the
federal supreme court show the diff
Guilty experienced by that court in
clearly defining the line where the
state and federal powers meet. The
length to which this direction has al
ready been extended forbids any dis.
cussion of the cases, but they are re-
viewed in Cumberland & P. r. Co. v.
Maryland, SO L. r A. 766, 772. The
right OF the state to tax property used
In interstate commerce is conceded in
all the cases. Every tax on property
used in interstate commerce will as a
rule nave the ultimate effect of increas
ing the cost of transportation. But
this fact does not necessarily bring
such tax law in conflict with the com
merce clause of the federal constitu.
ton. Such a result is conjectural. too
remote and indirect to be an interior
ence with interstate commerce. It is
clearly established that, to be within
the prohibition of the federal constr-
tuition the interference with the COM
mercial power must be direct, and not
the more incidental effect of the re-
qu1rement of the usual proportional
contribution to public maintenance
The Wisconsin court, in constituting
similar statute, has pointed out that
sections 1211-1213 merely prescribe the
way for measuring and ascertainine
the amount Of such license fee for the
year IN which the license is granted
and That such license is not a tax on