Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/200/226.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:25:42+00:00

Document:
This was 'a controversy without action,' submitted in accordance with the laws of North Carolina in that behalf, in the superior court of Buncombe county, that state, in which B. R. Lacey, treasurer of North Carolina, was plaintiff, and Armour Packing Company was defendant.
It appeared from the facts agreed, as in substance stated by the supreme court of North Carolina, that the Armour Packing Company was incorporated in New Jersey, but has its principal office and place of business in Kansas, that business being 'a meat-packing house business,' and that it has property in North Carolina; that 'a meat-packing house is a place where the business of slaughtering animals, and dressing and preparing the products of their carcasses for food and other purposes, is carried on; the products thus prepared consist of fresh and cured meats, such as hams, dry salt sides, bacon, lard, beef extracts, glue, blood, tankage, etc.' That the Armour Packing Company 'does not, anywhere within the state of North Carolina, slaughter, dress, cure, pack, or manufacture any products hereinbefore set forth, of any animal, for food, or for commercial use, or for other purposes;' but that after the animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for food or other commercial purposes in Kansas, such product is shipped in bulk to Wilmington, Greensboro, Asheville, Charlotte, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, where the company has cold storage plants and warehouses, and sold from such storage plants, some of such product to parties in North Carolina and some to parties outside of that state; that part of said products shipped to [200 U.S. 226, 229] the cold storage warehouse in Asheville, Buncombe county, remain there until disposed of in due course of trade on orders taken and received after said products have been stored or placed in said warehouse or cold storage plants. At each of said five points in North Carolina, where the company maintains a warehouse and cold storage plants, it has one or more employees, i. e., bookkeepers, stenographers, shipping clerks, salesmen, drivers, laborers who box said meats and who wrap and crate goods for delivery as they are sold. There are, in Wilmington and other cities of said state, commission merchants, brokers, and butchers who sell by wholesale and retail in competition with the Armour Packing Company, who are not engaged in a meat-packing house business in North Carolina or elsewhere, fresh, cured, and salt meats and other products that have been manufactured from the carcasses of slaughtered animals for food and commercial purposes, and, under the laws of North Carolina, said commission merchants, brokers, and butchers are not amenable to the tax levied under 56 of said revenue act of 1903. At all points in North Carolina where the Armour Packing Company is engaged in business, and at various other places in said state, there are engaged in business, as the Armour Packing Company is engaged, packing houses which pack articles of food other than meat, and offer them for sale in said state, such as peas, beans, tomatoes, corn, pumpkins, fruit, fish, oysters, etc. The products of said packing houses are articles of food and commerce, and are sold in the state of North Carolina through agents, brokers, wholesale and retail merchants, just as the products packed by the Armour Packing Company are sold.
The ruling of the court was invoked on certain points stated, all of which were adjudged adversely to defendant, and judgment was rendered against it for the tax and costs, which was affirmed by the supreme court of North Carolina. 134 N. C. 567, 47 S. E. 53.
Mr. Thomas B. Felder, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
[200 U.S. 226, 231] Mr. Robert D. Gilmer for defendant in error.
'The act in question does not deny to the petitioner the [200 U.S. 226, 235] equal protection of the laws, as the tax is imposed alike upon the managing agent both of domestic and of foreign houses. . . . There is no discrimination in favor of the agents of domestic houses, and, while we may suspect that the act was primarily intended to apply to agents of ultra state houses, there is no discrimination upon the face of the act, and none, so far as the record shows, upon its practical administration. As we have frequently held, the state has the right to classify occupations, and to impose different taxes upon different occupations. Such has been constantly the practice of Congress under the internal revenue laws. Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U.S. 261, 275 , 49 S. L. ed. 471, 476, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233. What the necessity is for such tax, and upon what occupations it shall be imposed, as well as the amount of the imposition, are exclusively within the control of the state legislature. So long as there is no discrimination against citizens of other states, the amount and necessity of the tax are not open to criticism here.' 197 U.S. 69 , 49 L. ed. 668, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 403.
'A tax may be imposed only upon certain callings and trades; for when the state exerts its power to tax, it is not bound to tax all pursuits or all property that may be legitimately taxed for governmental purposes. It would be an intolerable burden if a state could not tax any property or calling, unless, at the same time, it taxed all property or all callings.' Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U.S. 540, 562 , 46 S. L. ed. 679, 690, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431, 440.
And see W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452 , 45 L. ed. 619, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730 , 47 L. ed. 669, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 401; Savannah, T. & I. of H. R. Co. v. Savannah, 198 U.S. 392 , 49 L. ed. 1097, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690; Minnesota Iron Co. v. Kline, [200 U.S. 226, 236] 199 U.S. 593 , 50 L. ed. --, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159; Cable v. United States L. Ins. Co. 191 U.S. 307 , 48 L. ed. 193, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74.
As to the contention that the act is in violation of 3 of article 5 of the state Constitution, the state supreme court held that this tax, although not a property or ad valorem tax, was controlled, even if the requirement of uniformity were applicable, by the rule that 'a tax is uniform when it is equal upon all persons belonging to the described class upon which it is imposed.' And with that conclusion it is not our province, nor are we disposed, to interfere.
As one article of the findings defines the meat-packing business to consist in doing certain things, and the very next article declares that none of these things are done within the state, it is difficult to say that, notwithstanding these findings of fact, there is a conclusion of law that the company is doing a meat-packing business in that state. The packing company doubtless falls within the letter of the statute. It does a meat-packing business in Kansas City. It does a business in North Carolina. But, as we have said in numerous cases, a thing may be within the letter of a statute, and not be within its spirit. United States v. Babbit, 1 Black, 55, 17 L. ed. 94. The letter of the statute in this case would be satisfied if the packing company did a furniture or dry goods business in North Carolina, yet it would clearly not be within the intent of the statute. If, for instance, the tax were upon breweries, and the beer were all manufactured out of the state, and then shipped into the state for sale and distribution, is it possible that the defendant would be liable for doing business as a brewer? So if the tax were imposed upon the manufacturers of carriages, and all the manufacturing were done in Chicago, and the carriages shipped into North Carolina, and there sold, the defendant would be liable as a dealer in carriages, but certainly not as a manufacturer. The business done at the five cold storage plants, which consists in packing the meats and wrapping them for delivery as [200 U.S. 226, 238] they are sold, is not mentioned in the seventh finding, even as an incidental part of the packing business. Much less even is the business of selling meats at retail, as ordinary butchers do. Yet, in the opinion of the court, the company was doing a meat-packing house business within the state. In the view of the minority, the business done within the state must be a meat-packing business, and not the business of selling meats, either at wholesale or retail; and when the meat-packing house is accurately defined in the stipulation, and no part of the business thus defined appears to have been done within the state, it is impossible to support the tax.
The case resembles that of Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U.S. 60 , 49 L. ed. 663, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 403, in many particulars, but with the vital difference that the law of Georgia imposed a tax upon 'all agents of packing houses doing business within this state, $200, in each county where said business is carried on.' As the tax was imposed upon agents of packing houses, and not upon the packing houses themselves, the court was unanimously of the opinion that the managing agents of foreign packing houses were subject to the tax. But in this case the act attempts to reach out and tax packing houses doing business as such exclusively in another state.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.