The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1912-02-23
MINNESOTA TAX law UPHELD
oRoss EARNINGS EXPRESS COM.
PANIE8 VALID.
Pointed Out These Duties Are Not
Burden Upon interstate.
Trade.

Washington. Feb. 2l.-Saying that
I'VE ind no error In the judgment OF
the supreme court OF the state OF
Minnesota" Justice Day Of the su-
preme court Of the United States at
armed the opinion OF the supreme
court Of Minnesota In upholding the
gross earnings tax law Of that state
% applied to taxes upon earnings OF
express companies.
This cass was brought by the Unit
ed States Express company to test
the validity Of the Minnesota Law.
The law provides for . tax Of 8 per
cent on the gross earnings Of express
companies and in reaching the conclu-
sion that the law 10 valid, the supreme
court d~iferentiates 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.
nesota 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;
also that business which ia conducted
under conditions where consignments
are made to co%nsignees 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 o,
less bearing upon the principles In
volved in this case. the court sustatns
the decision Of the supreme court o.
Minnesota UNFOLDING the validity o.
the gross earnings tax law. as applied
to the taxes assessed in this case.
Minnesota will be able to recover
approximately 81, O00.0 900 in back tax
20 as . result Of the courts decision
The court In another decision helt
. similar law In Oklahoma unconstitu
tional becauss it was found to b
more of . tax on property and wal
distinguished from the Minnesota case
on that ground.
Only congress and not the supreme
court OF the United States may objec
to the initiative and referendum meth
Cd of legislation in the states, SO thu
court itself decided.
That tribunal held that the questio,
Of whether a state still maintained
Republican form of government guar
anteed BY the federal constitution
after 1t adopted the initiative and: ref
erendum method. was q political prot
lem for congress and not 4 judicia
one for the courts. 5
The decision was based OIL the CLAIM
of the Pacific States Telephone ant
Telegraph company that a tax upol
It, imposed by the Initiative and rel
erendum method in Oregon. was On
constitutional. The initiative and ref
erendum provisions in Missouri. Cal
ifornia. Arkansas. Colorado. Soutl
Dakota, Utah. Montana. Oklahoma
Maine and Arizona. hung in the bal
ance.. An adverse. decision woult
have affected proposed legislation o
that character in many other states.
Confusion In several states as I,
the time given to q borrower Of none!
from q national bank In which to %,
the bank for collecting usurious IN
terest was set 1T rest when the su
preme court decided that the time q
to be measured from the date Of tn.
actual payment Of usury and not from
tho date of making Of the usuriou'
contract. The point arose in the sui
Of Patrick B. McCarty against tn,
First National bank OF Rapid City