Evening star., 1938-11-14
D. T.. Business Tax
Validity 10 Be Argued
In Court Tomorrow
Appeals Bench Will
Hear Attack on Its
ConstitutionoIity
By WILLIAM A. MuLEN.

N"AANAey Va tAAS
District business privilege tax will
be argued tomorrow in the United
States Court of Appeals, with oppo-
nents attacking it as violation of
the Federal Constitution and the
District government spokesmen con-
tending it is an entirely proper ex-
ercise of power.
The case revolves around the
transactions of William H. Neild and
j. Emerson Sauerhoff, commission
merchants of 1903 Water street
S.W., co-partners. doing business
under the name of Neild & Sauer-
hof, 1t will come before the ap-
pellate tribunal on a writ of error
from the Municipal Court. The
partnership seeks to recover s245 90
paid by 1t under protest as tax for
the privilege of engaging in business
here.
Appearing for the partnership are
Attorneys Alvin L. Newmyer and
David G. Bress, who contend the
court below erred in entering find
ing, verdict and judgment for the
District of Columbia; in denying
their motion for judgment; in re-
fusing to hold that title of the
District of Columbia Revenue Act
Of 1887 imposed an undue burden
on interstate commerce and that
their business was in interstate COM
merce, unduly burdened by that leg
islation; in refusal to hold the act
unconstitutional as a burden on in
terstate commerce and that Con-
gress. in enacting legislation here
for the District of Columbia, acts
"as a State Legislature with like
limitations to such legislation.
Court Error Claimed.
Further, the lawyers for the part
nership contend the court erred in
refusing to hold the act retroactive,
arbitrary and conhscatory" and
hence invalid on these grounds; in
refusing to hold that the act is dis
criminatory as applied to persons en-
gagged in the same business and 9TH
erwise similarly situated and in ex-
Guiding evidence sought to be ad-
duced in that connection: in exclud-
ing evidence offered as to the COM
petitive activities of others engaged
in same kind of business and the
manner in which the business is op-
Grated; in refusing to hold that the
Business Privilege Tax provisions of
the act are unconstitutional and
void as applied to the partnership.
In addition, the counsel contend
that the Municipal Court erred in
denying their motion for a new trial
and that there are errors in other
respects apparent on the record of
the case.
AS a conclusion of their case. the
United States Court of Appeals will
be told that the District of Columbia
Revenue Act of 1887 is IAN un-
constitutional violation of the COM
merce clause of the Constitution
and a violation Of the due process
clause of the Fifth Amendment" as
applied to the partnership Accord
ingly, the appellate tribunal will be
asked to reverse the lower court and
hold the business privilege tax in
'S~AAN' &AeooAAACy ~. ". AdlIlCllSOOI1
is also of the counsel for the part
nership. with Mr. Newmyer and
Mr.. Bress.
As against this set of arguments,
Corporation Counsel Elwood H. Seal,
Principal Assistant Corporation
Counsel Vernon E. West and As
sisstant Corporation Counsel Glenn
Simmon, on behalf of the District
government, will contend that the
judgment of the Municipal Court is
correct and should be affirmed.
Not Interstate Commerce.
The partnership, according to the
municipalities spokesmen, reported
gross receipts of 141,723.70 and on
January 3 of this year paid the
first semi-annual installment of the
tax due-$241.10, plus $4.82 for pen
atty of l per cent per month for
failure to make payment when due.
They instituted suit in the Municipal
(See RIJSTNESS TAX pace AL