The Penn's Grove record., 1910-02-25
MINNESOTA GAINS
BIG RAILWAY SUIT
Great Northern and Chicago
Great Western Must Pay Tax.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES 1T
Means $500, 900 in Arrears and $780,
900 Annually For State-Fffty
Decisions Handed Down-Coml-
plete Victory For the State.

plete Victory For the State.
Washington, D. C.-The State of
Minnesota won a complete victory
over the Great Northern Railway
Company and the Chicago Great
Western Railway Company when the
Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed the decision of the State
court, holding that the railroads were
liable to the four per cent. tax on
gross earnings imposed by the terms
of the State law.
The Great Northern Railway Com
pany brought suit in the District Court
of Ramsey County, Mimi, in 1905, to
recover $4,000, the difference be-
tween the four per cent. claimed by
the State and a tax of three per cent.
on the gross earnings, which the rail-
road asserted was all 1t was liable for.
This court held that the Great North
ern should pay the additional one per
cent. tax on the gross earnings on six
teen branch lines, but excepted from
the additional tax the gross earnings
of the branch lines built or owned by
the st. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani
toba Railroad Company, from which
the Great Northern Company had
leased its lines. The ground for the
exception was a provision of the char
ter of the Minnesota and Pacific Rail-
road, granted in 1857, and which linn
tied taxation to three per cent. OF
gross earnings.
Both sides appealed to the Supreme
Court of Minnesota. The States claim
was that the three per per cent. gross
earnings tax provided for the Mime
sofa and Pacific Railroad Company
had been superseded, and, at any rate,
that 1t was personal to that company
and could not be transferred, after
the adoption of the State Constitu-
ton, to any of it's successors. The
Supreme Court held the increase in
taxation to four per cent. was valid as
to the Great Northern.
The Chicago Great Western Rail-
way Company held similar exemption
under a Territorial charter.
The United States Supreme Court
held in the Great Northern case that
the Territorial charter did not exempt
it, and decided the suit of the Chicago
Great Western on the authority OF h
Great Northern decision.
The opinion which settled the Min
nesota case was one of more than
fifty decisions handed down by the
Supreme Court. These cases involved
the administration of justice as 1t had
appeared in the lower Federal courts
and State tribunals in more than half
the States in the Union. Many State
laws were declared unconstitutional,
L..4 ,,Dho1d Tho zoe soc in
volving, like the Minnesota case, the
railway laws of the States were espe-
cially numerous and important.
South Carolina and Kansas like
wise won victories v the railroads.
The Supreme Court adopted the view
of the Supreme Court of South Caro-
lima that the law requiring railroads
to pay a penalty of $50 for failure to
adjust within ninety days claims for
losses applied only to intra-State
traffic. Kansas won its fight with the
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
for the installation of separate pas
senger trains on a branch road from
Madison, Kan, to the Kansas-Mis-
souri, State line. Here the court an
nounced a doctrine that will reach
every State-viZ., that even II this
passenger train was operated at a loss
the railroad was under a duty to per-
form such service as long as 1t re-
tanned its charter.
On the other hand, the court de-
clared unconstitutional the Alabama
statute levying an annual franchise
tax on foreign corporations, and Geor-
gia lost in most of it's contentious in
the attempt to levy taxes on the Geor-
'gia Railroad and Banking Company's
property and franchise, despite char
ter exemptions.
St. Paul, Misunderstanding of the
victory won by the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in the
four per cent. gross earnings tax case,
Acknowledgement George T. Simpson
said:
This victory means that the State
becomes possessed of 100000 in
back taxes as we'll as an assured an
nual revenue of 100000.
at is the most important litigation
the State has eve carried on, and
was begun by my predecessor in Office,
E. T. Young. The closing arguments
we're made a few days ago by my as
sistant, George w Peterson, and my
self"