Court Opinion

ID: 9419001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:44:38.611662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:14.228689
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler,
concurring.
Mr. Justice McReynolds and I concur in the result.
Appellant is engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, a part of which is carried on in the State of Washington. *442For the privilege of doing that business the state statute purports to tax its gross earnings at the rate of one-half of one per cent. The exaction is plainly repugnant to the commerce clause. Philadelphia & Southern S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217. Meyer v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U. S. 298, 300. New Jersey Telephone Co. v. Tax Board, 280 U. S. 338, 346. Fisher’s Blend Station v. Tax Comm’n, 297 U. S. 650, 655-656. Puget Sound Co. v. Tax Comm’n, 302 U. S. 90, 94. See Matson Navigation Co. v. State Board, 297 U. S. 441, 444. Reversal appropriately may be based on citation of these decisions without more.