New-York tribune., 1908-05-22
4 STOCK TAX DECISION.
Bay State Supreme Court Renders
an Omnion

Boston May IA written opinion on the consti-
tutionality Of taxing transfers Of stock was sent
10 the House Of Representatives o-day By he Sd
prenle Judicial Court OF Massachusetts While the
court was unanimous on TWO phases Of the Ques-
rion there was q difference Of opinion on third
point
The House had submitted to the court for an
opinion three questions:
First whether il is within the constitutional
power Of the Legislature 10 enact law imposing
2 tax on all shares certificates Of stock in any
domestic or foreign association, company or cor
poration- under that clause Of the constitution
which authorizes the Legislature to levy proper
tional and reasonable assessments; second whether
such q tax may be imposed under the legislative
authority 10 impose reasonable duties and excises.
and, third, whether such tax may be imposed
under any other provision Of the constitution.
The justices united in answering the first and
third questions in the negative Chief Justice
Knowlton and Justices Morton and Braley, con-
stituting legal majority Of the court, answered
the second question also in the negative, while JUS
tices Hammond L,oring, Sheldon and Rugg
answered il in the affirmative.
The majority opinion On the second question holds
as follows:
has often been decided that the exercise Of its
franchise and Of its various rights and privileges
which conferred by its charter is a commonly
whlch may De proper slp!ect loF 'i!e @ @F @
Of an excise tax. The right 10 own and transfer G
part OF the franchise, and il may be taxed IN TINS
As 10 so much Of the question as relates stock
y foreign corporations th= answer is more diff
fcut II the proposed excise tax is upon an act
which is done here under the protection Of our
laws inclined to the opinion that the
transfer may be treated the enjoyment OF 4
benefit this state which is something more than
the exercise Of natural right, and is thus COM
rnodiry within the meaning of our constitution
IN reference such transactions with some hesita-
ton. answer the question II the Affirmative
The question before US relates also shares or
certificates Of stock in associations or companies
as wen corporations Many organ
ized in other states or countries under statutes
which give them many + the privileges of cor
porations. trat they Tartake more of the nature
of corporations than Of partnerships COM
hlraflons q tenants IN common All such
associations, and all others which organized
and enjoy privileges in this commonwealth. may he
subject excise tax upon 2 commodity en-
5oyed including a tax IN The transfer Of shares
As the bill includes voluntary associations and
companies organized ana doing business without
whose onlv business function Of 4 kind that
call for legislative regulation under the
second question in The negative If such associa-
lions and companies were excepted from the opera
zion ~ the should answer il IN the airn1a-
fiNc
J2stices Hammond. Loring and Sheldon concur
in the statement that they find nothing in the
constitution which limits the power irnposf-
end IevT1ne trposts and excuses. except that they
must - reasonable. They Of the opinion that
the power Of the general court IN imposing and
7hat of Congress that Of the Legislature Of New,
York. both of which have passed similar laws
which have been upheld by Supreme Court Of
United States
Justice RUgg holds that the second question
cannot o. answered in The Affirmative unless such
transfers held 10 be commodities within The
nearing Of the constitution He believes such
transfers come within the familiar iefpiton o.
commodity given in numerous cases