Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1912-02-22
MINNESOTA Tx Law UPHELD
GROSS EARNINGS EXPRESS COM.
PANIES VALID.
Pointed Out These Duties Are Not
Burden Upon Interstate.
Trade.

the supreme court of the state Of
Minnesota" Justice Day of the SUI
preme court of the United States af.
court of Minnesota in upholding the
gross earnings tax law of that state
as applied to taxes upon earnings Of
express mpanies.
This case was brought by the Unit
ed States Express company to test
the validity Of the Minnesota law.
The law provides for a tax of per
cent on the gross earnings Of express
companies and in reaching the conclu-
sion that the law is valid, the supreme
court diferentiates between laws hav-
ing for their basis the measuring Of
what taxes shall be- rather than the
source of the income. Such taxes
point that gross earnings tax laws like
those of Minnesota do not constitute
burden upon interstate commerce.
This decision by Justice Day was
the unanimous opinion of the court,
no dissent being announced. The de-
cision reviews the passage of the Min
ACoOId O00 COL A141S0 CCIA Ia oAO
cites the different classes of receipts
of express earnings, including express
business done wholly within the state
and part within and without the state;
also that business which is conducted
under conditions where consignments
are made to iconsignees within the
state but pass over lines of railroads
traversing territory outside of the
state After reviewing the decision
of the state court and a variety of
opinions given by the supreme court
of the United States in other cases
of like character, having a greater or
less bearing upon the principles in
volved in this case, the court sustains
the decision of the supreme court of
Minnesota upholding the validity of
the gross earnings tax law, as applied
to the taxes assessed in this case.
Minnesota will be able to recover
approximately $1,000,000 in back tax
es as a result of the courts decision.
The court in another decision held
a similar law in Oklahoma unconstitu-
tional because it was found to be
more of a tax on property and was
distinguished from the Minnesota case
on that ground.
Only congress and not the supreme
court of the United States may object
to the initiative and referendum meth
cd of legislation in the states, so the
court itself decided.
That tribunal held that the question
of whether a state still maintained a
Republican form of government guar
anteed by the federal constitution
after it adopted the initiative and ref
ferendum method, was political prob
lem for congress and not judicial
one for the ccur5s.
The decision was based on the claim
of the Pacific States Telephone and
Telegraph company that tax upon
it, imposed by the initiative and ref
erendurl method in Oregon, was un.
constitutional. The initiative and ref
5rendum provisions in Missouri, Cal
ifornia, Arkansas, Colorado, South
Dakota, Utah, Montana, Oklahoma,
Maine and Arizona, hung in the bal
ance. An adverse decision would
have affected proposed legislation of
that character in many other states.
Confusion in several states as to
| the time given to q borrower of money
| from a national bank in which to sue
the bank for collecting usurious in.
terest was set at rest when the su.
| preme court decided that the time is
! to I e measured from the date Of the
| actual payment of usury and not from
| the date of making of the usurioua
contract. The point arose in the suit
of Patrick B. McCarty against the
First National bank of Rapid City.
| S. D.