The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-20
CcOntinued from page one. }

]
tcontinued from page one
between the states and with foreign
states, is unconstitutional. We regard
this decision as mistaken and as stat
ing established law This case cites
the earliest cases to the same effect. ;"
The opinion concludes:
Regulates Interstate Commerce.
We are of the opinion that the
statute levying this tax does amount
to an act TO regulate commerce among
the states. The distinction between the
tax equal to one per cent of the same
seems to us nothing except where the
formal phrase Is the index of an ac-
tual attempt to reach the property and
to let the Interstate traffic of the re-
lceipts from il alone We found no
such attempt or anything to qualify
the plan inference from the statute
taken by itself On the contrary. we
rather infer from the judgment of the
state court and from the argument on
behalf of the state that another tax on
the property of the railroad is upon a
valuation Of that property tax as a
going concern. This is merely an ef-
fort to reach the gross receipts. not
even distinguished by the name of an
occupation tax and in no way helped
by the equal to-
"Of course il does not matter that
the plaintiffs In error are domestic
lcorporationg or that the tax embraces
indiscriminately gross receipts from
commerce within as well as outside
OF the state. We are OF the opinion
that the judgment should be reversed. .
Opinion of Minority.
The minority opinion, written by
Justice T.. Harlan and concurred in BY
lChief Justice and Associate Justices
White aud McKenna, while short.
states the views entertained clearly
and most fOrcibly.
In my opinion says the dissent
ing opinion, "the court ought TO ac-
cept the Interpretation which the Su-
preme court of Texas places upon the
statute. In other words, It should be
assumed that by imposing upon rail
roads and corporations owning, oper.
ating managing or controlling any
line Of railroad in the state for trans
lportation of passengers. freight or bag.
gage, an annual tax equal to one per
centum of It's gross receipts as the
llength OF the portion of such line With
IN the state bears 10 the length Of such
line, the state intended to impose only
an occupation tax Such is the con
struction which the court places on the
statute aud that construction is iusti-
fled by the words used"
Continuing, the decision says fur.
ther.
1T is not, IN my opinion, TO be taken
las tax on interstate commerce in the
sense of the constitution, for its oper.
ation in interstate commerce is only
Incidental. not direct A state. in the
regulation of its internal affairs often
lprescribes rulea, which, IN their opera.
ltlon, remotely or incidentally affect In.
lterstate commerce. But such rules
have never been held as In themselves
imposing direct burdens upon such
commerce. and on that ground invalid
Ship CAGE Not Parallel.
The dissenting opinion also quotes
the Philadelphia and Southern Mail
Steamship company vs.. Pennsylvania
and contrasts the present case thus:
Here there Is no levying upon re.
ceipts as such from interstate com.
merce The state only measures the
Occupation tax by looking at the entire
lamount Of business done within its
limits, without reference TO the source
from which the business comes II
does not tax any part OF the business
because Of its being interstate II has
reference equally 10 all kinds Of busi
ness done by the corporation in the
lstate. Suppose the tsate. as under its
constitution II might do. should impose
an Income tax upon railroad corpora.
ti0ns of its creation. and doing bust.
ness within the state equal 10 "a given
lper cent OF an income received by
the corporation, from its business,
would the corporation be entitled 10
have excluded from computation such
lol its income as was derived from in
lterstate commerce? Such would be
rs right under che principles announc.
ell Ia the present case l cannot as
sent 90 this view
New Rule Of Taxation.
The dissenting opinion says In cou.
lClusion.
The present decision. ] fear. intro
duces lnto our jurisprudence new
rule OF taxation that VIII seriously AZ
feet the taxing laws ON many It not
adj the states aud - cripple The pow
off N the several states Ia matters of
/ IiaxnfInn that they cannot nonlnsIl Ih.,ir