Evening star., 1922-04-13

1
business in the District, not reduced
| to concrete form; because it taxes
state and municipal bonds.
Mr.. West In his argument followed
closely the line Of his formal BRIEF.
| Taking UP drst the right Of plain
| atins-in- -error.to question the validity
| Of the act because It unlawfully taxes
| non-residsnts, H." he said, las we re-
spectfully submit, this renders the
entire act void. there is left no au-
in-error hereunder. and they are
pre3udiced by its attempted enforce
| mont. It would be most remarkable
u p!aintins-in-error and others in a
similar position must continue to pay
| taxes under a void statute nnth the
non-resident.
Injection Of Limitations.
1T this we're the law, the Commits
sioners Of the District could, as they
have attempted to do, read into the
act limitations not there and enforce
It only to the extent Of the power OF
| Congress. thus preventing It's valid
ity from being questioned. and, In ef-
valid. The power OF amendment is
| vested alone in Congress. and not in
the courts or the District Commits
Congress clearly intended that the
| ACT SHOulQ operate dIlhc upon TcSI~
dents and non residents engaged IN
business here. II the act is to be mar
| rowed by executive amendment to its
constitutional limits. and SO enforced,
| there will be one rule of taxation for
raAAents and another for non-resi-
of the tax will be thus thrown upon
! residents, to their detriment and to
\ the advantage OF non-residents COM
| peting with them.
! "Who can say that Congress would
have passed the act in the form as
thorities? Must the resident con-
tinue forever to pay the tax levied
| under void statute simply because
| the District Commissioners see fit to
| collect the tax from residents alone,
when the statute in plain terms di-
| on-residents engaged in business
here?
"This is the effect of the decision
| Of the court below. since II permits
| only non-residents to. attack the act
| on the ground hereunder considera-
tion.
| "It was further suggested in the
| courts below that, even IL this pro-
| vision of the act Is invalid as to
resident persons and corpora
| tions Engaged in business in the Dis
trict, 1t may be enforced against all
persons who, like the plaintiffs-in-
error In this case. are residents. But
this would place upon residents alone
| a burden which Congress- plainly In
| tended should be shared by non-resi-
dents who come here to compete In
business with residents.
IF this view of the act should be
! upheld a corporation organized un-
der the laws Of one of the states or
I! under the laws of any foreign coun-
| try could carry on business in WASH
| q r.
poration engaged I'm the same busf-
| ness and escape this tax altogether.
A District corporation could sur
render its charter. take out new
one from Maryland or Virginia and
| 60 on with its business free from
| this tax. Obviously. this is not what
| Congress intended"
Corporation Counsel Stephens argued
the case for the District. defendant in
| error. He asserted that the plaintiffs
| within any of the classes TO which the
| provisions of the law claimed to be In
valid apply. He followed the lines Of
the brief submitted to the court, which
upon this proposition said:
ut was contended on behalf Of the
District in the court below. and In this
court upon the first argument. that all
| OF the questions raised are moot Ques-
| tions SO far as the said Peters. his
committee or executors are concerned.
! Peters was resident Of the District;
also his executors. The intangibles
taxed are situated in the District and
none of these intangibles belongs to the
class claimed to be exempt from taxa
| ton under the law. or falls within any
Of the provisions Of the law claimed to
| be invalid.
1.-THE power to tax property within
/ the jurisdiction, whether tangible or in
tangible, of residents cannot be denied.
That is really the only question before
the court. The other questions raised
by plaintiffs in error are not questions
which directly touch him or his prop
| erty: therefore they do not arise in this
case. The case was disposed by the
court below on this point, and recent