Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-03
Chain Store Decision Raises
Question of Future Policies

tention in other places besides the State
Legislatures"
Attempts to provide special taxa
ton for chain stores in other States"
records the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
have failed chiefly because most State
Constitutions particularize closely as to
taxation, and their courts are dlsposeo
to construe provisions rather literally.
In Federal taxation, Congress has a
freer hand than does the average
Legislature, and aside from the pro-
hibition on tariff taxes and conflscatory
imposts, there are few Federal inhibi-
lions on the State taxes that may be
levied. The United States Supreme
Court, accordingly. finds nothing IN
Indiana's law repugnant to Federal
requirements. Revenue raising, how
ever, is not the main purpose for which
most of the State legislation relative to
chain stores has been proposed. To tax
nationally owned chain stores out OF
existence by placing on them greater
burdens than on the locally owned
single store Is what has been aimed
at, or, at least, beginning IN taxing
them out of existence" The Green
nation of authority to enact laws
tending to equalize the struggle between
these stores and Independent concerns
for business"
"The decision" thinks the Charlotte
Observer, gave impetus to the propo-
sition of placing higher taxes on the
chains. The Legislatures of Ohio, Hi
nois and North Carolina at once began
shaping bills to correspond to the
license levies in Indiana" The Observer
finds that "the fairest deliverance on
the subject that has come to its at
ka~ dc hot nf hn
Journal of Commerce, which states: IF
the independent retailer really needs
the special advantages afforded by dis
criminatory taxes, in order to meet the
competition Of chains that are not
guilty of unfair practices, his right to
survive becomes problematical. If, on
the other hand, abuses arise through
chain store competition Of a kind that
threatens the existence of efficient, In
dependent businesses, relief should be
provided by attacking specific abuses.
not by attempting to penalize fair and
efficient chains that have demonstrated
their social worth"
1.-The tax of $25 on each store could
just as well be made $780," suggests
the Charleston IS. c. Evening Post,
raising the question of whether the Su-
preme Court is prepared to permit con-
fiscation of any legitimate business I'M
der the guise of taxation in these days
Is questionable, although there are many
who think the court will abide by the
dictum of Marshall that the power to
tax is the power to destroy" The st.
Louis Times feels that 1.-The tax to be
charged Is by no means conf1scatory or
even large enough to be seriously OPP
posed" that 1t should mot affect the
profitable conduct of the stores in
volved" and that it will put the indie
pendents in better position for fair
competition
individual merchants" advises the
South Bend Tribune, Twill do well to
ponder all aspects of the decision. It
may increase legislative influence on
private business competition" The
Charleston wv. Va) Daily Mail de-
clareS, There Is much probability in
the view that II the chain stores do
prove to be an economic success, not
only from the point of view of the
chains themselves, but of the public
generally, they are likely to persist
"Extravagant States" thinks the New
York Sun, may look to the tax as one
more fountain of cash. In States more
wise 1t will be regarded as inequitable,
bar to competition and an impost on
enterprise" The Baltimore Evening
Sun advises that "the chain stores are
to be penalized, not necessarily because
the Supreme Court thinks they should
be penalized, but because, In penalizing
them, the Indiana State Legislature has
not gone counter to the Supreme Courts
theory Of taxation" The Chicago Daily
News offers the Judgment: The chain
store must justify itself economically.
If it ministers to the public welfare, op-
position to it is irrational and in the
long run will be futile, like opposition
to labor-saving and capital-saying i'm
provements generally. Meanwhile the
efficient and well managed independent
store needs no artificial legislative
props"
mo relief to individual traders" Is
expected by the New York Times, which
assumes that "conflscatory taxation
would not be permitted by the court"
The Topeka Daily Capital points out
that zone Of the moral effects Of the
decision Is to further discredit uniform
and equal taxation as any sort Of mod
ern foundation for O tax system."