Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-11-16
NO DECISION YET
Supreme Court Did Not Act
on Mary Rogers Case
Yesterday.
CAN'T TAX OUTSIDE CARS
suprcme Court Gives Decision
against Stntc Of NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
holders Of n National Bunk Not
Protected by state statute
Of Limitation.

Washington. Nov. 13.--Contrary TO
general expectation the Supreme
court of the United States to-day fail
ed to deliver its opinion in the case
If Mrs. Mary NJ Rogers. under sem
.oncc of death for the murder of her
husband in Vermont.
That state statute of limitation
cannot be used TO protect the stock
holder of failed National Bank
against liability on his stock to-day
was decided by the Supreme Court Of
the United States in an opinion deliv-
cred by Justice McIienna in the case
Of George G. Rankin, receiver of the
Hutchinson National Bank. in Hutch
inson, Kans. vs.. Edward T. Barton, a
stockhold"r in the bank. In this In
stance an effort was made to enforce
the individual liability requirements
Of the national banking laws in 1900,
seven years after the suspension of the
bank. Barton took the case into the
Kansas courts pleading the State sta
tutc of limitation which protects the
debtor after three years. The State
supreme court sustained the plea but
that decision was reversed by to-day's
decision.
The supreme court to-day reversed the
decision of the Kentucky court of appeals
In the case of the Union Refrigerator
Transit company VS.. the Commonwe alt h
If kcnetucky. holding that the cars own
cd by the company and used in other
states cannot be taxed in that State even
though it be a Kentucky corporations
This case grew out of :ln effort on the
part of the authorities of jefferson coun-
~, Kentucky, to enforce the tax law of
In" state against the trarsit company.
The company owns 1000 refrigerator
cars ana an effort was made to tax then
at the rate of 800 each. 1t was insisted
by the company that as its cars are used
in foreign commerce they are not sub
ject to taxation under the law, and that
II they are, the law is unconstitutional.
Justice Brown, in rendering the opinion,
held:
1.-The adoption Of general rule that
tangible property in other States may
be taxed at the domicile of the owner
Involves possibilities of an extremely
serious character. Not only would il
authorize the taxation Of furniture and
other property kept at country houses
in other States. or even in foreign
countries, of stocks of goods and mer.
thandisc kept at branch establishments
when already taxed at the State OF
their situs. but OF that enormous mass
Of personal property belonging to rail-
ways and other corporations which might
be taxed in the State where they are in
rorporated, through their character con-
templated the construction and opera
ton Of roads wholly outside the state"
WILL HEAR CASES AGAIN.
The court to-day granted the motion
OF the government for "a rchcaring of the
Eases OF Warner. Barnes & CO., and
lincoln. both against the United States,
involving the right of the government
70 collect tariff duties in the Philippine
STANDS on goods shipped in from the
United states subsequent to tho ratinca-
non or the treaty with Spain and prior
10 the enactment of legislation bv Con-