Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-12-06
ARGUMENTS MADE IN SUITS IN.
voLvING PENALTIES I'M
POSED ON RAiLRoAps.
REFUSAL TO RECEIVE
GOODS POINT At ISSUE
North Carolina Seeks to Impose Pen.
atty Of $50 Per Day For Refusal to
Accept Shipments - constitutionaIity
Of Law Attacked BY RaiIroads-ln-
tsrfsrsnes With Commerce Alleged.

Washington. Dec. 5.-The right OF the
states to penalize railroads for refus-
ing to receive goods for shipment In
interstate commerce was argued today
before the supreme court Of the United
States.
The question presented to the court
concerned particularly the state oi
North Carolina. A direct attack was
being made on the constitutionality o.
the statute. enacted in 1905 in that
state, imposing penalty Of $50 a day
tc accept goods for transportation.
Tie principle involved was before this
court in two different cases. One arose
out OF the shipment OF a carload OF
shingles by Reid & Beam from Ruther
fordton, N. G., to Scottville, Tenn
When they loaded the shingles onto u
car and asked the station agent al
it was declared that he replied he knew
of no such place. 1t proved to be a flag
station on the Knoxville and Augusta
.ailroad, TO which no published rate
existed After several days delay. the
Goods were shipped. No damages we're
lioven to have resulted to the shippers
hut they recovered $3.50 as penalty, I'M
posed by ths statute for refusal to re-
ceive the goods.
Mrs. Reid's Case.
The second case arose out Of Mrs.
d. L. Reid's attempt to ship house
hold goods from, Charlotte. N C., to
Davis, w. Va. No published rate, as
authorized by the interstate commerce
laws. existed between Charlotte and
Davis. and the shipment was delayed
five days before a rate was obtained. A
jury awarded Mrs. Reid $25 damages
and $3.50 as penalty.
In both cases the defendant was the
Southern Railway Company.
The law IL attacked largely on the
ground that it was an interference by
the state with interstate commerce.
The supreme court Of North Carolina
sustained the law as constitutional.
The court took the position that con-
Eress has not legislated in reference to
railroads receiving goods for shipment
and therefore that the subject was
open to regulation by the states. until
congress exercises such right A dis
senting opinion, however, was heard in
the court.
In the case arising out Of the ship
ment from Charlotte to Davis. the su
preme court said that it was not ex-
pected that the railroad should have on
file published rates from Charlotte to
every place in the union, and while the
railroad might be prohibited by the in
terstate commerce laws from shipping
without such rate being published,
yet the laws did not prohibit the rail-
road from receiving the goods.
Dodsing Inheritance Taxes.
Washington, Dec. 6.-How inheri-
tance taxes may be lodged was ex-
planned today by the supreme court OF
the United States. An effort was being
made in oral argument to have the
court uphold the constitutionality of
the New York transfer tax" enacted
in 1896 to stop evasions OF the inheri-
tance tax.
Nearly every state having an inheri-
tance law is said to be interested in
the decision Of the court in passing on
the law. 1t will probably be several
weeks before the decision is announc-
ed.
The transfer tax" is imposed on the
life interest retained in property trans
cerred by person. The very fact
that life interest in property was
singled out for taxation led to the at
tack on the law as being unconstitu-
tional. It was argued that the singing
out OF this interest was an arbitrary
and unreasonable classification of
property for taxation. prohibited by
the fourteenth amendment of the fed
eral constitution.
The complaint about the law came to
a focus when the state comptroller
sought to collect about $1,000 as a
transfer tax" from the estate OF Mrs.
Susan A. Keen. Of 175 Washington
Park, Brooklyn, n. Y. She died In
1907. but four years before she had
transferred q large amount Of her
property to the Fidelity Trust Com
pnny. Of Newark. N. j.. in trust for her
three children. She provided. however
that she should retain one-fourth of
the income from this property during
her life. 1t was this life interest that
the state sought to tax.
The court Of appeals OF New York
upheld the constitutionality OF the tax.
In announcing the opinion of the court.
Chief Justice Cullen said that 1t was
not wholly unnatural desire existing
owners Of the property to avoid
the imposition of the inheritance tax
upon the estate they might leave so
that the estate might pass to the OBJ
jects of their bounty unim paired.
The justice said that 1t was mat
ter Of common knowledge that for the
purpose Of, avoiding the Inheritance tax
trusts or other. conveyances were made
whereby the owner OF property, re-
served to himself income arising there
from. He added that were It not for
the provision OF the statute. attacked as
~. con q tifmtional in many cases proper
ty would pass free from taxes upon
the death OF a person to the parties
who would take II as heirs.