Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1911-01-17
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
MUST PASS ON 1T coNsTl.
TUTIoNALITY
WOMAN FILED INITIAL SUIT
STELLA P. FLINT, OF WINDSOR,
VERMONT, FIRST TO OPPOSE
FEDERAL STATUTE
She LOST IN LOWER COURT
AS A RESULT THIS CASE AND
OTHERS WERE CARRIED BE-
FORE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL

Washington, Jan. 17-Arguments
were begun today before the Supreme
Court of the United States to decide
the constitutionality of the federal
corporation tax.
A woman began the fight on the
constitutionality of the corporation
tax imposed by provisions of the
Payne-Aldrich tariff act of 1909.
Even before the time, when the
law went in effect, Stella P. Flint, as
general guardian of the property of
Samuel N. Stone, Jr., a minor and
owner of stock in the Stone Tracy
company, doing a general mercnan'
disc business at Windsor. VT. started
proceedings to test the constitution
ality of the law. She proteSten
against the Stone-Tracy company
making the return and paying tae
tax. because. she claimed, that the law
was unconstitutional. The Circuit
Court of the United States for the
District of Vermont could not take
that view of the law, and hence di-
rected that her petition be dismiss
ed. She appealed to the supreme
court.
The course pursued in the Vermont
fn1I n
other suits brought in almost as
many circuit courts. In all, the law
was upheld, but without extended
consideration. The theory was that
the supreme court would conduct an
into the constitution
ality of the law, and that the conclI.
sions of the lower court would aid
but little while it would delay the
final determination.
The major part of these cases were
argued before the supreme court
last March, but all were restored to
the docket for reargument before
full bench.
The legal contest is centered large
ly over the consideration Of few
words in the extended provisions, re-
lating to the tax The words are
these:
"That every corporation, joint
stock company or association, Or
ganized for profit and having a cap
ital stock represented by shares, and
every insurance company shall be
subject to pay annually special ex-
else tax with respect to the carrying
on or doing business by such cor.
poration, joint stock company or as
sociation, or insurance company,
equivalent to one per centum upon
the entire net income over and
above $4,000 received by it from all
during such year, exclusive Of
received by it as dividends
upon stock of other corporations,
joint stock companies or associations,
or insurance companies, subject to
the tax hereby imposed"
These words would bring $25,000,-
900 annually into the federal treas
ury.
The law was attacked in the first
before the court from
various points of view. Maxwell Ev-
arts, of New York, laid stress on the
point that the law was unconstitu-
tional because it invaded the SOY.
of. the state by laying bur
dens upon the corporate franchises
granted by state to a corporation.
Former Senator Foraker, of Ohio.
contended that despite the name Civ
en- to the tax that 1t was "cornora-
ton income tax" such as were pro
unconstitutional by the de-
cisions of the court fifteen years
ago. Besides these two conflicting
arguments many others have been
advanced by the long list of counsel
engaged in the various cases.