Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1905-07-20

ings were to he aScertained by such
return, the legislature has clearly eN
pressed lis 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
arc in accord VITA 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 tae
true statement of the gross earnings
1'le 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-
Sronsibility of making suca true re
turn. TAis return in substance takes
the place of the sworn statement
whicl the individual taxpayer is re
QCired TO make as the basis for the as
sessment Of mis- taxes (sec. 1850. As
in the case OF the Individual (sec
le56al, so in the case Of the railroad
(sec1214. a penalty is imposed for
failure to make a true statement,
knowingly Omitted Earnings.
1T appears from the facts stipulated
that the defendant knowingly AMI in
tentionally omitted substantial por-
ton of its gross earnings, relying on
the advice of counsel To determine
whether this advice is q defense, the
fair meaning of the statute must be
gathered looking at the object and
purpose for which ii was enacted.
Turning to ne statutes imposing penal
ties for not making true statement
for the purposes of taxation, we fnd
that the statutes in certain cases eN
pressly provide that sucl penalty shall
be imposed If the taxpayer Intentionally
(sec. 1056a) or wilfully tsecs. l222c.
1222D refuses or neglects to make such
true statement. There Is nothing in
the corresponding section relating to
railroads (soc. l2l4) that suggests that
| intent is an essential element In order
that the penalty may be imposed Had
the legislature intended to make proof
of wllful or intentional omission essen,
tial to the recovery of the penalty, it
would have so provided in section 1914,
as II did in sections 1056a, 1222c and
1921. Section 1921 is in exact accord
with this construction of section 1914.
It imposes the penalty for: QD Neg
lect to make the report, (2) neglect to
pay the license fee or any part there
of, and (S) neglect to make a true
statement u. e., making false report)
The statutes DO not in express
terms impose a penalty for failure TO
return true statement of the gross
earnings. These statutes must be
strictly construed. State V. Wolfrum
s Wis, 4S1. 4S3. But when we consider
tho history of section 1914 and
examine Il in the light of the other
sections dealing with kindred topics
the legislative intent to impose tle
penalty under the facts disclosed by
the stipulation appears too plain to ad-
nit of any strict construction that WIN
amount to a change of the manifest
purpose of the law. State V. Nelson.
III Wis. 1894, 399.
THE conclusion follows ,nat section
1914 imposes the penalty under tne eli
cumstances disclosed by the stipula-
tiCn.
Statute Constitutional.
"Consttutionality 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 80. 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. 7G6. 772. The
right OF tne 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 ilave the ultimate effect of incrsas-
inG the cost of transportation. But
this fact does not necessarily bring
such tax law in conflict with the com.
MERGE clause Of the federal constitp.
ton. Sucl a result Is conjectural. too
remote and indirect to be an interior.
ence with interstate commerce. II 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-
quirement Of the usual proportional
contribution TO public maintenance
The Wisconsin court, In constituting
a similar statute, has pointed out that
sections l2l1-1213 merely prescribe the
way for measuring and ascertalnine
the amount Of such license fee for thr
year In which the license is granted
and That such license is not a tax on