Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/278

242 might therefore burden as it pleased. The minority, consisting of Justices Bradley, Harlan, Lamar, and Brown, insisted that the tax, though called one on the franchise, was in fact one "on the re- ceipts of the company derived from international transportation." Justices Bradley and Harlan had dissented in the Pullman case, in which Mr. Justice Brown had not sat, having been appointed to the bench after the case had been argued; but Mr. Justice Lamar had concurred in that case and also in Western Union Telegraph Co. V. Massachusetts, in which Mr. Justice Harlan was with him. Mr. Justice Bradley for some reason did not sit in the Western Union case, but he was on the bench when The Delaware Railroad Tax was decided by a unanimous court. It seems, then, that the dissent in the Grand Trunk case is to be attributed, not so much to long-standing convictions, as to a new recognition of the problem. Mr. Justice Bradley's dissent in the Grand Trunk case starts with the position that, "whilst the purpose of the law professes to be to lay a tax upon the foreign company for the privilege of exercising its franchise in the State of Maine, the mode of doing this is unconstitutional." The learned justice here seems to look behind the subject taxed, and to attach controlling significance to the measure by which the amount of the tax is determined — an enterprise which the court had hitherto regarded as beyond its province. He insists that the nominal subject is not the actual subject. "The tax, it is true, is called a tax on a franchise. It is so called, but what is it in fact? It is a tax on the receipts of the company derived from international transportation." And the cases then adduced as precedents against its constitutionality are those in which the res named as the subject of taxation included the business of interstate commerce, or receipts therefrom. Had the majority taken the same view of what was being taxed, they would undoubtedly have agreed that the tax was unconstitutional. But they accepted the state's declaration of what it was taxing, and thought that a tax on a privilege that the state might with-