The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1910-05-31
TAX CASES TO Be Rt-ARCUfD
CONTINUED from Page -


ton of the time for the making OF the
returns was the first move made 10
test the validity of the tax. This
movement TO test the great question
about corporation law started I'm the
little town of Windsor, Vermont.
There. Maxwell Evarts. New York
lawyer, son of the late William M.
J Evarts. has summer home. He had
often noticed the keen competition be-
tween the two general merchandise
stores i'm the town. the Stone Tracy
company, a corporation and Dwight
Tuxbury & Sons, partnership con-
Germ. He saw what he believed was
a discrimination against the corpora
ton If IL were compelled to pay the
tax and make public it's business ar
rangement, and so accepted the posi-
ton of counsel for Stella =. Flint, as
general guardian of -he property for
Samuel ~ Stone Jr., a minor who
owned stock i'm the Stone-Tracy Co.
Suit was brought i'm the federal court
by Mr.. Evarts to enjoin the corpora
ton from making the returns and
paying the tax, on the ground that
the law was unconstitutional. The
corporation filed a demurrer, which
was sustained and the bill dismissed.
An appeal was taken to the supreme
court.
The institution of the Flint Stone
Tracy case was the signal for the
bringing Of suits in many sections OF
the United States All were decided
in exactly the same way. and almost
invariably appeals were taken to the
supreme court. The government was
allowed TO intervene. Fifteen cases
headed by the Flint Stone Tracy suit
were set for argument on March IA.
Resides the Vermont case, those
: heard were:
Wyckoff an Derhoef VS.. The ConeS
Island and Brooklyn Railroad COM
pany.
Francis L. Hine VS.. Home Lie IN
surance company, of New York
Fred w. Smith VS.. The Northern
: Trust company, of Chicago.
William H. Miner VS.. The Corn Eek
= change National Bank of Chicago
e Cedar Street company VS.. Par
Realty company of New York.
Lewis w. Jared VS.. the America
I, Multigraph company of Cleveland.
!. Joseph e. Gay VS.. The Baltic Mimi
company, a Michigan corporation.
Percy II. Brundage VS.. Broadwa
Realty company of New York.
paul Iacroix VS.. oMtor Taximete
Cab company of New York.
Arthur Lyman VS.. lnterporoug
le RAND Transit CO., of n. Y.
" George Wendell Phillips VS.. FIT
Associates of Boston.
Oscar Mitchell VS.. Clark Iron com
many Minnesota corporation.
Katherine Cary Cook VS.. Bosto
Wharf company.
Two days were consumed III the al
lie pument of the case in the supre'
ry court. William ID. Guthrie or Ne
York. counsel for the Home Lire II
surance company, argued that IL u
IL court would interpret the law so
not to incluue III 'ho ~
income derived directly from feder'
state. county or municipal securi'i
ana real and personal property
lix used or employed in business tne
it would be no question about tne Gu
stitutionality of the law
Of Solicitor General Bowers deleno
Nc. tho constitutionality of the law VII
a out qualification. He contended 'tr
es- the tax was not direct tax UP
property, real or personal but OH
mes oortrarv. was an excise tax UP
cal che carrying on or doing CUISINES
Tho tax. he continued, was not a.
- rect tax upon shares of the stocKno
\ ers in the companies to the pusii
I of which the tax attaches, or upon
;rcone Of such stockholders from IN
sbares. It did not become uir
tax. he added. because the conip'
engaged mainly or evening soieiy'
the business of handling or dealing
rool estate. The various objections
the law was taken up in turn py
solicitor.
- Mr.. Evarts opened the argum
against the law. He contended
a the law invaded the sovereignty
II tho state of Vermont; that 1t We
deprive the corporation OF prop'
al without due process of law ana
III its publicity feature would take