The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-11-14
CARS CANNOT BE TAXED IN KENTUCKY Important Decisions Handed Down by Supreme Court TAMPA WATeRWORkS CASE City Is Upheld In It's Contention of Power to Modify Existing Rates.
 Gamblers Can Recover
 Lost Money.
TAMPA WATeRWORKS CASE

Washington, November 1s.-The supreme court of the United States today reversed the decision of the Kentucky court of appeals in the case of the Union Refrig- orator Transit company vs. the common- wealth of Kentucky, holding that the cars owned by the company and used in other states cannot be taxed in that state, even though 1t be a Kentucky corporation
 The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Brown.
 This case grew out of an effort on the part of the authorities of Jefferson coun- ty, Kentucky to enforce the tax law of the state against the transit company. That company is Kentucky corporation, having it's home office in Jefferson coun- ty, while its main place of business Is in St. Louis, Mo. The company owns 2000 refrigerator cars and an effort was made to tax them at the rate of $200 each. The proceeding was instituted in the lief ferson county court, where 1t was held that the company would be required to pay tax on only the cars used in that state. This verdict was affirmed by the Jefferson circuit court but reversed by the state court of appeals, which held that "the stus of personal property is the domicile of the owner" It was in- sisted by the company that as its cars are used In foreign commerce they are not subject to taxation under the law, and that if they are the law is uncon- stltutional. Todays decision sustained tho ron of ha Gtat ha case, Justice Brown said:
 "The question is directly presented whether a corporation organized under the laws of Kentucky is subject to taxa tion upon its tangible personal property, permanently located in other states, and employed in the prosecution of it's busi- ness. Such taxation is charged to be violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment"
 Possibilities Are Serious.
 He announced the conclusions of the court as follows:
 "The adoption of a general rule that tangible property in other states may be taxed at the domicile of the owner, involves possibilities of an extremely se- rious character. Not only would 1t au- thorize the taxation of furniture and other property kept at country houses in  of stocks of goods and merchandise kept at branch establishments, when already taxed at the state of their situs, but of that enormous mass of personal property belonging to railways and other corpora tions which might be taxed in the state where they are incorporated, though their charter contemplated the construc- ton and operation of roads wholly out side the state, and sometimes across the continent, and when in no other particu- lar, they are subject to its law and entitled to it's protection. The propriety of such interpretations, where no business is done within the state, is open to grave doubt, but it's legality has been recog nized in so many cases that it would seem that legislation alone can furnish a remedy.
 Our conclusion upon this branch of the case renders it unnecessary to decide the question whether the transist company was granted the equal protection of the laws"
 He added the assurances that the case does not involve the question of taxation of intangible property, nor inheritance taxes, and concluded:
 Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that the cars in question so far as they are located and employed in other states | than Kentucky, were not subject to the taxing power of that commonwealth