The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-11-09
MOTOR VEHICLE
 LICENSE LAWS
 ARE CHALLENGED
Constitutionality of N e W Jersey Auto Tax Causes
 Law Suit.

Law Suit.
 Washington, Nov. 9.-State authUr- ! tiles and motorists generally were af- fected in the suit challenging con- st1tut1onality of New Jersey motor vehicle license laws of 1908. It pre- sented for the first questions of whether a state has authority to l raise revenues for maintaining state roads by imposing automobile license i taxes, and whether automobile pleas ure touring is interstate commerce" Although the Supreme Court in January. 1915, by unanimous opin- lon upheld Maryland's motor license laws as not burdensome upon inter- state commerce, the new questions were raised in an appeal by Frank J.. 1 Kane, a New York citizen, from con- viction of violating similar New Jer- | sey laws.
 r Both Maryland and New Jersey | impose graduated automobile li- cense tax, upon both residents and non-residents, based upon horse | power. | In the New Jersey case, however, the state authorities admitted that the legislature proposed to raise revenues for maintaining state road, by means of the licenses and that such taxes were not solely for ad- l mtnistration costs of regulation and registration of motor traffic, as was | the case in Maryland
 New Jerseys courts held that the raising of money by such licenses Imposed on the use of automobiles on New Jersey roads and not upon the vehicles themselves, as direct property tax-waS clearly within the ] states police powers to compensate 1t for improvement of and wear and tear upon the highways Kane, how ever. intended that thee ourt's opin- ion in the Maryland case merely up- 1 held a law not designed for revenue purposes and that the New Jersey revenue-raising law was void as dis crimtnatory and state borden upon interstate commerce.
 | Upon the question of whether mo- tor pleasure touring is commerce" /" in defending Kane's suit the New Jer- sey authorities contended that "com- merce is more than mere pleasure
 and that Kane could not success fully attack the New Jersey laws as he was convicted of their violation while merely touring through Pater- son to Delaware Water Gap, Pa. l The New Jersey state attorneys all so contended that a license tax is not a property tax and that the New Jer- sey laws impose license taxation, with registration of resident and non-resi- dent motor vehicles. not as a tax up- on the vehicles themselves, but mere.
 ly upon their use and operation on ! Torcou hi ieyI %1J
 Exemption of horse drawn ve-
 hicles from taxation in New Jersey
 was attacked by Kane as unreason- able discrimination against motor
 users. The states attorneys contend ed that abnormal wear and tear
 caused upon roads by automobiles
 makes the exemption reasonable; also it was contended that non-residents
 have no legal right to free use of l other states roads. Another feature
 of the New Jersey laws attacked by
 Kane was a requirement upon non-
 resident motorists, in registering, to
 designate the New Jersey secretary l of state as their agent for service
 of process in legal proceedings caused by operation of their vehicles.
 The New Jersey law imposes li-
 censes of $3 for automobiles with
 ten horsepower or less; $5 for 10 tc
 29 horsepower and $10 for more than 30 horsepower. Non-residents are
 like natives, required to register and pay the licenses, which are lower
 than the Maryland fees upheld by the
 Supreme Court, and may also secure
 g. limited license good for driving only (not applying to the vehicle 1t.
 self) for "A hours within the state The annual automobile license reve.
 nue in New Jersey was said to exceed
 s250, 1000. %
 In the Maryland case. the Supreme Court upheld the graduated horse power license tax was valid and no1
 burdensome upon interstate com. merce in the case of non-residents the court stating that, in the absence of legislation by Congress. the state.
 may exact compensation, if reason. able and uniform, for the use of theil roads.
 The American Automobile Associa. tion and National Automobile Cham.
 Der of Commerce were represented
 in the arguments before the Supreme Court in October, 1918.