The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-11
COAST LINE
 CASE CLOSED Argument of Counsel is
 Completed. JUDGE WEANEY AND COL. KAY They Put on Finishing Touches of
 Franchise Case. A Fundamental Point is Whether State Franchises Were Extinguished
 by Consolidation Into
 Interstate Line.

Argument of counsel by both sides was continued Saturday before Judge A. D. Sayre of the Montgomery City Court, in the case by which the Att ilantic Coast Line seeks to tear down the new franchise tax law of Alabama and recover several thousand dollars which that line has paid to Probate Judge J.B. Gaston of this county, under that statute.
 At the opening of court Saturday morning on the second day of the hearing, Judge Sayre listened to Col w. E. Kay. assistant general coun- sel of the Coast Line, who was com pleting his argument, begun Friday afternoon. He was followed Satur- day morning by Judge Samuel D. Weakley, who closed the argument for tine State, or more properly Judge of Probate Gaston.
 At the conclusion of the argument of Judge Weakley, it was announced by Judge Sayre that he would hold the case under advisement His de- cision will be announced later. Writ ten briefs were filed by both parties.
 In the session of the court on Sat- urday morning, MT. Kay continued his argument upon the several other counts contained in the plaintiffs dec- laration. Several of these counts were the same as those which had been set out in the complaints of the L. and N, Central of Georgia, and Seaboard Air Line Railway. which were heard before Judge Sayre some time ago.
 Colonel Kay then made a plea for the proper interpretation of the phrase, amount of capital employed in this State," as used in the statute imposing this franchise tax. He contended that this phrase should mean the amount of liquid. or floating capital which was necessary to enable the railroad to carry on its business in the State of Alabama from day to day.
 Colonel Kay then argued the sixth and last count of the complaint, which alleged that the act under considera- tton imposed a burden upon interstate commerce, in violation of the Constitu- tion of the United States, in that 1t caused foreign corporations to bear more than their just share of the bur- dens of the Government, to whose sup port they were compelled to contrib. ute.
 He contended that the tax imposed by the law under consideration was a property tax, and that added to the ad valorem taxes already imposed by the State, made a total in excess of the taxes imposed upon domestic corpora tions doing exactly the same kind of business. That is to say. he argued that the imposition of this tax made 1t cost foreign corporation more to do intra-state business in the State of Alabama than it did a domestic cor doing the same kind of busi- ness. and that where foreign corpor- ation was engaged in interstate com merce, as well as intrastate commerce. and was compelled to pay this dis tax for doing intrastate business, 1t would necessarily tend to discourage foreign corporations from doing intrastate business, and that. therefore, necessarily, the amount of lntrastate commerce in the State of Alabama would be diminished and a burden laid in this manner upon inter state commerce.
 Colonel Kay cited. in support of this theory, several pertinent United States Supreme Court decisions, among hem Darnell & Son vs. Memphis, POS J. S., 120.
 Judge WeakIey Argues.
 Judge S. D. Weakley of Birmingham | 'losed the argument Saturday morning | Or the State Judge Weakley took up |