New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-12-02

|
! ply with city liquor regulations u was
decided in an excursion steamer case.
/ Decisions handed down yesterday ny
! the United States Supreme Court III tHe
Amoskeag Bank case. the controNe''S
! over the sale at cut prices of copyrigh'eu
books and the jersey city llghterage llu-
CATION all affected New York business IN
| terests.
Lawson Purdy, president OF the Tax
Commissioners, was elated when he heaid
| OF the decision I'm the AmoskeaS BANK
case The city has been collecting the
per cent tax on national bank stock
at the rate Of about $4,000 year since
/ 1901, when the litigation started. without
the assurance that some day II might
! not be the subject OF innumerablc actions
TO recover the tax, unless the mai decl-
sion was I'm the city's favor. II meant
that more than 100000 had been col
lected on an uncertain tax. covering
! The period since 1901, when the Legislature
put trust companies, savings banks, state
| banks and national banks on an equality
as far as the tax on the stock vas con-
Cerned.
/ The legislative act Of 1901. as FAR as II
/ related 10 national bank stock was i'm
mediately attacked by owners OF such
stool, under Section 1912. Of the National
| Banking Act OF 1863. a part Of which pro-
! yidcd that shares of national bank
| stock should not be taxed more than any
other moneyed capital In the hands of
! individual citizens 10 was contended
/ that tho bank shares were the same as
! any other property and a mans debts
could be charged OF against them. II
/ was on the Interpretation OF the phrase
! 'moueycd capita" that the case was
| taken 10 the court Of Appeals hy the
Amoskcag Bank. ~ Manchester. y. n.
! The city received temporary setback
/ by the decision OF the Court Of Appeals
| that tho law was invalid because IL did
not provide that notice Of the tax should
/ be given curative act. including the
notice. was passed. and Corporation
! Counsel Coleman carried the case to the
Court Of Appeals again. which decided In
! the citys favor making the law retro
active To- 1901. The curative act had been
| attacked fifteen times. but each time was
upheld 10y the courts.
The last case started In 1905, when the
validity OF tine original law was attacked
again by the Amoskeag Bank and suit
, hled against Mr.. Purdy and tho other tax
( commissioners. vino had taxed the bank
/ FOR 10 shares OF American Exchange Ma
'ionsl Bank stock and sixty shares OF the
stock OF the Chemical National Bank.
| D. T,I
/ The case went through TO tho United
states Supreme Court this time. and the
final decision was In favor " the city.
II have not seen n copy 81 the decision
reversing the Judgment In the case Of r.
/ 49, Macy 4 co against the American
/ Publishing Association COMPANY" said
Edmond f.. Wise counsel FOR MACY & Co .
last night. but / am Informed that the
court holds that the combination COM
planned OF between the publishers and
the booksellers and their respective assoc
Citations is in violation Of tie sherman
antitrust law. and that the statutory
copyright does not protect against The
| operations Of the antitrust law.
N this Information is correct then the
Supreme Court FOR the nrst time. has
sustained the right Of an individual 10 at
tack an illegal combination in court Of
equity and restrain its operations. The
effect Of this is so far-rcachlng that its
ultimate result cannot be predicted az il
opens the door to individual actions with
out resort to the cumbersome action at
law which has heretofore been considered
the only remedy for the people. or an
| L.. Al
! United States. which In most cases has
been found fruitless. so far rs individual
! benefits are concerned"