Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1912-02-22
MINNESOTA Tx Law UPHELD.
CROSS EARNINGS EXPRESS COM.
PANiEs VALID.
Pointed Out These Duties Are MOI
Burden Upon Interstate.
Trade.

the, supreme court OF the state OF
Minnesota, " Justice Day of the su.
preme court of the United States af-
frmed the opinion of the supreme
court of Minnesota in upholding the
gross earnings tax law Of that state
as applied to taxes upon earnings Of
express companies.
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 s per
cent on the gross earnings of. express
companies and in reaching the conclu-
sion that the law is valid, the supreme
court differentiates 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
Q 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
tnesota gross earnings tax law and
cites the different classes Of receipts
Of express earnings, including express
business done wholly within the state
and part within and without the state;3
also that business which is conducted
under conditions where consignments
are made TO sconsignaes 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 theSsupr court
of the United States in other cases
of like character, having greater or
less bearing upon the principles In
volved in this case, the court sustains
the decision of the supreme court of
Minnesota unfolding the validity of
the gross earnings tax law, as applied
to the taxes assessed In this case. u
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. A5s
That tribunal held that the question
Of whether a state still maintained
Republican form of government guar
anteed by the federal constitution
after it adopted the initiative and ref
,erendum method, was political prob
lem for congress and not a judicial
one for the ccnrss. s5#.
The decision was based on the claim
of the Pacific States Telephone and
Telegrs oh company that a tax upon
1t, imposed by the initiative and ref
erendura method in Oregcn, was UNI
constitutional. The initiative and ref
5rendum provisions in Missouri, Cal
tfornia, 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. III
Confusion in several states as to
the time given to a borrower of money
from national bank in which to sue
the bank for collecting usurious in
terest was set at rest when the su.
pfeme court decided that the time is
TIC he measured from the date Of the
actual payment of usury and not from
the date Of making of the usurious
contract. The pcint arose in the suit
Of Patrick 3. McGarty against the
First National bank of Rapid City,
S. D. ii