Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-03-05
VIRGINIA WINS TAX SUIT
IN U. S. SUPREME COURT
Armour & Co. Must Pay on Mcr-
chandise Manufactured Else
where and Sold Here.
WHITE READS THE DECISION
Important Ruling Fully Sustains
Right OF This Commonwealth to
Levy on Goods Made in Another
State and Offered for Sale Here.
ISpccial 10 The Timcs-Dispntch. ]

lSpeciai 10 me Times DISPATCH
WASHINGTON. March An u de-
cision read to-day by Chief Justice
White. the Supreme Court upheld tho
Virginia license tax upon merchandise
business done within that State. The
opinion was rendered in the case OF
Armour &c Co. against the Common
wealth of Virginia, the decision of the
lower court being affirmed. The Nir-
ginia tax applies TO "all goods, wares
ana merchandise manufactured by SucI
merchant and sold or offered for sale
in that State. Armour & Co. refused
TO comply in so far as the tax required
the Inclusion in the amount of pur-
chascs of merchandise manufactured
by the corporation in other States and
shipped into Virginia for sale.
The Suprcm. Court held tho tax to
be legal, stating: But il is urged the
statute should be held to be burden
in interstate commerce and rcpugnant
TO the Constitution because OF the dis
advantage 10 which. it is stated, il
necessarily, by way OF license tax.
subjected goods manufactured in an
other state when sold in Virginia by
a merchant manufacturing the same.
while no such tax was by the statute
imposed on a manufacturer in Virginia
selling his goods so manufactured AZ
the place OF their manufacture. Bat
VIC have already tested the statute by
its necessary operation and effect and
found it not to be rcpuEnant to the
commerce clause; hence this arGYnen.
but repeats In Il different form a con
tcntion already disposed Of.
STATE HAS RIGHT
TO IMPOSE; THIS ia Y
at follows. therefore, that If the as
serted disadvantage be real ard not
imaginary, 4 would be one not direct.
because not arising from the operation
and effect OF the statute. but Indirect as
a mere consequence of the situation OF
the persons and property affected and
Of the nondiScrinnating exercise by
the State of power which it had a
IiEht to exert without violating the
Constitution, which is indeed but 10
say, tEat the disadvantage relied upon,
II any, is but the indirect result OF
our dual system of government.
In other words, to resume. the error
OF tho argument results from confourd-
ing the direct burden necessarily aric-
ing rom II statute which is uncon-
stiiutional hccaus" 1t exercises a pow
or concerning interstate. commerce not
possessed or because of the unlawful
discrimination which its provisions ex-
press or by operation necessarily brink;
about. and the indirect and wholly neg
lii;:blc Influence on Interstate com
merce. even IL in some aspects detri-
mental arising f"On 4 statute whic,,
here was power TO enact and in which
there was an absence o: all dscri'n-
nation. whether express or implied. n
the result OF fhe ncce4 sary orcrnt!0r
and effect Of Its provisions. The dis
,!nction between the two has been an
forced from the beginning as vital 20
the parpetuation Of our constitutional
system: indeed, as correctly pointed cut
hy thu court below. that principle. as
applied in adjudSed ca""s. is hero di-
rectly applicable and Hrthcri;a.ivc,y
controlling. IN saying this. We NV.
not overlooked or fai!21 TO cont 80
The many cEseG cited in the arEr y 80
ri ba: on the theory that they at
tho contrary. when in fact ;h"y II! 80
upon III. conclusion that 4 direct bIr-
den or Interstate commerce. arose from
statutes Inherently void Tor want OF
power. or. II within the powe" possess
cd. We're intrinsicany repu-nont TO tie
commerce clause because of diec:irs
nations against ,ntrrstat. oor.r1o~,r
which they contained