OCR Text |
Show Highest Court of the United States Hears Arguments of the Protestants. - TAX CLAIMED ILLEGAL ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS Principal Objection Alleged Is Infringement of Stale ' Rights. WASHINGTON. March 17. For four hours today .tho supremo court of the United Stales listoucd to arguments argu-ments on the constitutionality of the corporation tax. Lawyers from various sections of tho country took part in tho argument. They were connected with the lifteen cases in which the validity va-lidity of the tax is attacked, and which had been consolidated into one cause for this hearing- In each of these suits, stockholders or policyholders had brought action to prevent corporations from paying the tax. Without, exception excep-tion the lower courts held the tax constitutional con-stitutional and dismissed the suits. Maxwell Evarts of New York opened the argument. Jle declared ' the tax unconstitutional, because it interfered with ihe powers of Ihe state by laxiug a franchise; that it was arbitrary and oppressive, because its publicity clause look private property for public use without compensation. Former Senator Foraker of Ohio and liiehard V. Lindsbury of Xcw York addressed ad-dressed the court oh general features of the law, holding it invalid. Invasion of Bights. Mr. Kvarts dovoled much of his lime to arguing thnt the law invaded the sovereignty of the stale. ''When the lax is mad,o and the tax is ascorlainod thereby., and possibly the tax paid," said Mr. Rvarts, "the return re-turn is made a public record open to inspection, Hy what power of congress is that done? Perhaps it is part of a general scheme of regulation of corporations. corpor-ations. But I ask where is tho power"?'-" .Justice Lurton wanted to know what tection of the constitution he claimed was violated thereby. Mr. livarts said il was that section which prohibited the taking of private property for pubic purposes without comppusnt ion. Mr. Foraker argued at length the duestion of just whal the tax was luid upon, rnlike Mr. Hvarts, who argued the lax was 011 the franchise of a cor-.noration, cor-.noration, he contended it was on net income derived from all noureos. On the publicity feature ho became most vehement. "Tin-re is no necessity for such a requirement,' said Mr. Foraker; "for the government has accomplished its purpose so far as revenue ig concerned, when the assessment are made.'' Mr. Foraker contended the tax is not on the business of the corporation, as such. "If so laid," said he. "il must be because of a classification based on something of the nature of tho partic- Contiuucd on Page Two. CORPORATION TAX ISSUE . Continued From: ular business on accoa should be so classified with other kinds of eluded in the class," ft Still Another Richard V. L'mdsbiifj counsel for stockholder faland & Brooklyn Eai and of the Home Life); pany, argued that the? excess tax upon husincs) but is either a soparati or an income tax. Hi government's brief as the foundation of tK cases." Solicitor General Bot argument in defenso of half a.n hour before c His fchme was devoted tax was merely mcasur income," but was not income.-' He a-Tgucd that lcj would have selected ni measure if the tax wa5". crty, as h.c said soma o had contended. J "Net income nnd come." saad he, "froi no usual relations to property employed inf whether different sorts tho same business at di considered Jn prosper! the amount of busincs given plaut is large, ni tho business -wcnlld h than in dull times. tt the plant with whicfij done remains tlv same, |