New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-12
Unconstitutional, Terry
Argues Before u. S.
Supreme Court
SHOULD NOT COLLECT
FROM NON-RESIDENTS
Interference with Inter
state Traffic Is An
other Point

There is now before the Supreme
Court Of the United States a case
argued recently at Washington by
Charles Thaddeus Terry as general
counsel for the National Automobile
Chamber Of Commerce and Ex-GoV-
crnor John W. Griggs for the Amen
can Automobile Association TO test the
constitutionality of the New Jersey
law imposing a tax on motor vehicles
belonging 10 and used by non-resideats
OF the state while engaged in inter
state commerce.
II "A decision is given against the
State Of New Jersey 1t will have
bearing on all the so-called reciprocity
clauses Of the motor vehicle laws Of
all the states. At the present time
they either limit the period for which
motorists may remain IN the state
without taking out new license TO
certain definite number of days. or
else exempt them for the period
granted by the motorists home state
10 visitors.
But even more important, 1t nay
affect the question of registration as
a whole on the ground that the fees
CHARGED for registering motor vehicles
arc lar in excess of the expense OF the
actual machinery of registration and
therefore constitute a tax for revenue
and as such q special discriminatory
and eonhscatory tax.
The point made by Messrs. Terry
and Griggs is: Governmental authori-
ties have no power or rght TO eX'ct
license taxes for revenue purposes IN
excess Of the sum necessarily required
as the cost of the process OF licensing,
because If they have such power they
have the power TO conhscate or ue-
strov. The exercise of any such power
as applied to a motor venice "o''u
bc clearly unconstitutional
New York state, for instance, n na',
collected this year more than @Z'oVV'OVV
in car and chauffeur fees when plalhig
Jar exceeds the cost OF the heehSlug
urocess. This is the feature when II
is argued makes the law uhcons'''u-
tional. r,t,
Tho case in question is that Of FRANK
Kane vs.. State Of New Jersey.
kane who had registered his car IN
Nov York State, where he lived, was
rested i'm Paterson on his way 10
PENNSYLVANIA. Kane had a New Jet-
eov divers license, but had not reg
fored his car. He was convicted anu
bned for q violation of three proNisio'
~ the New Jersey law, to WIT; flrs-'
,hat he had failed to register MS ma
chino in the State of New Jersey, am
sDcond that he had failed 10 pay me
.sv imnosed bv that state on non-res',
Jorts. and third. that he had falIee
~ 6le with the Secretary OF STATE Oh
NJ Jorsey a power OF attorney au-
tbo,i1inr the Secretary of State 10 re-
.o;-o eervice i'm his behalf in any pro
sscdir,- brought against him IN Vioia-
ton Of the laws Of the state Oh ~"
Jersey. in connection with the opera
ton OF his automobile.
The points made before the supreme
Cour, i'm an effort 10 have the Ia" ue-
clarcd unconstitutional we're as loi-
lows: 49, rocord
THAI the fees charged for the operation
of automobiles over the highways %
Now Jersey result in large surplus
.,,.o,,,o 20 the state over and above the
.vnenses of examination, licensing, reg
isfering and inspecting the automobile
fraTic on the highways, the charge Is
g, tax which is not in conformity with
rrone- tax laws in that the motor We
nicle is burdened with a heavy impost,
,,resrcctive Of It's value, whereas other
property is taxed only according 10 us
Va ue.
The so-called license fee" being
fp reality d tax, as shown by point
81 is unreasonable and void, as such
tax. because even assuming that II Is
charge for the use of special IA
al ity. to wit. the improved roads fur-
nished by the State of New Jersey, II
is unreasonable. because a lump sum
lis charged. irrespective of the question
how much or TO what extent the auto
mobile uses the roads. For example,
the same fee is charged for the right
of the automobiles o go from the ferry
house TO the Hoboken pier of trans
atlantic liner. which is just few hun
dred Yards. as is charged 20 the auto
mobile which traverses the roads of the
state for a whole year, covering thou
sands Of miles. Thus the charge is I'M
equal. disproportionate and not upon
any scientific or logical basis, and
therefore improper and illegal
8. The improved roads of state are
not a special facility" afforded by the
state TO automobiles, but their con-
struction and presentation TO the public
are simply governmental functions
which should be paid for out Of the
general tax fund in the same way that
the police force and the Fire Depart
ment are afforded for the use Of all
the citizens, irrespective of the amount
Of user. Therefore, no special charge
or impost can be levied for their use
to any particular class of users.
g. That the law is discriminatory
and class legislation in that, even as