Show THE SUPREME COURT COURT Missouri Tax Law About Express Companies Valid THE CASE OF YAKIMA CITY The Northern Pacific Is Not Bound to Maintain Main-tain 8 Station ThreeThree Justlcees Dissent I WASHINGTON Jan 4The United States supreme court today affirmed the decision of the lower court in the suit brought by the Pacific Express company against James M Herbeat and John 1 Wood auditor and attorney general respectively of Missouri Mis-souri By this suit the express company sought to restrain and enjoin the collection of a tax of 2 on each 100 of receipts levied lev-ied by the act of the state legislature I against express companies doing business within the state The companys bill attacked at-tacked the constitutionality of the act as an interference with interstate commerce and declared it violated the fourteenth amendment giving equal protection to all and also as contrary to the provision of the Missouri state constitution requiring all laws shall be uniform This court in an opinion by Justice Lamar says the contention that the tax is levied upon interstate commerce is unsound It says the tax does not relate to interstate business but entirely to state business and is expressly ex-pressly limited to receipts for business done entirely within the state and that it was not the intention of the legislature to interfere inter-fere with or tax interstate commerce In any way whatever The o her points raised it also holds are not well taken for wel ho i reason the tux applies equally to all companies doing express business The United States supreme court rendered ren-dered a decision today in favor of the I Northern Pacific railway company in the mandamus suit brought against it by the Territory of Washington ex rol Hiram j I Dustin prosecuting attorney of Yakima county to compel the railway to maintain a station and stop its trains at Yakima City The bill set forth that Yakima City at the time of the building of the road was the county seat and largest town in that county and the object of the railroad company com-pany in refusing to make Yakima City a railway station was to ruin the town and enhance the vaiue of the townsite of North Yakima which it had located on unimproved unim-proved lands belonging to the railway company com-pany Justice Gray in ihe op mon of the court says a writ of mandamus to compel a railroad corporation to do a particular act nnot nnn to ni hnI o n 111 lUUOLL UUllUg 113 AUUU UL UUlIUlll S UL running its trains can be issued only when I there is a specific legal duty on its part to do that act and clear proof of a breach of duty The courts have so held even in the matter of establishing a station at the terminus of a road The difficulties in issuing a mandamus are much increased when it is sought to compel a road to stop I trains at a particular place The location I I of stations and warehouses for receiving I l and delivering passengers and Ireixut involves i in-volves a comprehensive view of the inter est of the public as well as of the corporation corpora-tion and the consideration of many crcum stances concerning the amount ot business and convenience of a particular locution from which complaint comes are more appropriate ap-propriate to be determined by the directors of a company or in case of the abuse of their discretion by the legislature or by administrative boards entrusted by the legislature with that duty than by ordinary ordi-nary judicial tribunals Justice Gray says the charter of the company com-pany does not impose any specific duty as to the maintenance and size of stations and that to compel the directors to be controlled con-trolled by the courts by writs mandamus in establishing stations would be inconsistent establsbing statons sistent with many previous decisions The findings below he says show people living in i the surrounding country considered i ns a lt community wouiu oe uetier accommoaatea at North Yakjma than at Yakimi City The company ueuies the Iraudulent intent chrrged by Yakima City and it was not found by tie jury The fact that the town of North Yakima was laid out by the company com-pany on its ou n land cannot impair the inhabitants in-habitants of that town Justice Brewer rendered a vigorous oral dissent which was concurred in by Justices Jus-tices Harlan and Field He said when the railroad built its line it found a city already al-ready established the county seat and the largest place along its roap for many miles Every public interest required a station should be established there Instead the railroad company went three or four miles further along and laid out a town on its own land No reason was given for such a I course The railroad neglected and abandoned aban-doned its public duty to subserve its private pri-vate ends Anyone who knoxvs the process of railway building knows it is a common thing to build up a town and pull down another in this manner An established town offers an insufficient bonus for a station sta-tion sometimes the dissenting justices he said thought the courts had sufficient power to restrain in such proceedings The court sustained the law of the state of South Carolina which provides that the expenses of the state railway commission shall be borne by railroads doing business within the state each road being taxed a I proportionate share of the expenses of I maintaining the commission on a basis of mileage within the state |