Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1920-07-01

The validity of the Georgia oil and
gasoline inspection law, which is in
effect a revenue statute bringing the
state a large annual income, was
States district court in a decision
declining to grant the injunction
sought by the Texas company. Two
of the three judges who passed or
the case joined in the view that the
law violated neither, the federal moi
judge filed a dissenting opinion. The
decision will be appealed to the
United States supreme court on con-
stitutional grounds.
The litigation by which the Texas
company tried to enjoin j. j. Brown
commissioner of agriculture. and
other officials from collecting the in
spection fee of one-half cent a gal
lon was instituted this spring anc
was argued at length before Judge
circuit court of appeals; Judge sam:
uel H. Sibley, of the United States
court for the northern district OF
Georgia; and Judge Beverley ID
Evans, of the United States court
for the southern district of Georgia
Judge walker dissented from the de.
cision of Judge ySibley and Judge
Evans. Judge Sibley wrote the ma
jority decision.
Albert Howell, Jr., Mark Bo1ding
ford walker represented the. state
John NJ. Slaton and Luther q. Ros
ser, OF the firm of Rosser, Slaton
Phillips & Hopkins, were counsel
for the Texas company.
View of Court
A majority of the judges concur
red in an opinion which was against
the two cardinal contentious OH
which the complaining corporation
l., ~, 81 f@,
company argued that the fees We're
first, a tax on interstate commerce
which is violation of the federal
constitution, and, second. that they
violated the state constitution be
cause they were not uniform and ad
Valorem.
In holding that the law is valid
the decision expressed the view tina!
the fees did not apply on consign.
ments shipped direct to the con.
sumer, which represent a negligible
percentage Of oils and gasoline ship
cred, however, that importation:
stored in Georgia, or which are re-
sold after the original package is
broken, are subject to the inspection
fee and to a tax, inasmuch as inter
state commerce has ceased. AS to the
bearing of the state constitution, the
judges took the view that the assess
ment of fees in excess of the value OF
the service constituted a long-con-
tinued and unquestioned practice In
the state.
The revenue derived from the oil
and gasoline inspection law has in
creased enormously from year &c
year in proportion to the hugely In
creased consumption of automobile
fuel. In 1919, the state realized about
100000 from this source. The total
this year is expected to reach $780,
600 as the decision indirectly upholds
the statute governing the sale OF
fertilizer tags.
How Fees Are Used
The fees paid by oil and gasoline
producers is used in maintain the
states district agricultural and me
chanical schools. In. view of the de-
present and the necessity for the
legislature to consider emergency
tactics in meeting the situation, the
decision in the oil inspection case
with it's consequent loss or retention
of big item of revenue, was await
ed with keen interest.
Following are positions OF the ma
iority decision written by Judge SIP.
ley which apply to the main points
at issue: -
"In the New Mexico case. as to the por'
tion of the PLAINTIFFS business that con-
sisted in selling gasoline at retail. though
brought into the state of New Mexico from
another state 1t was said: so long as
| there is no discrimination against the pro-
ducers of another state and none. is shown
! from the mere fact that the gasoline is pro
duced in another state, the gasoline thus
stored and dealt in is not beyond the taX'
ing power of the state. Sales of the class
mentioned would be subject of taxation
within the legitimate power of the state,
1--WE accordingly hold that the importa'