Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/290

254 254 HARVARD LAW REVIEW it is insisted that "the taxation is essentially a property tax, and, as such, not an interference with interstate commerce," ^° the matter is not so clear. This value which the items have in combina- tion and from their use is mainly the value of the combination and the use, and in small part that of the items. And the combination and the use are largely in interstate commerce. The dividends to which Ohio citizens contribute are dividends from interstate as well as intfa-state business. The tax is a tax on interstate com- merce, and we shall not escape confusion until we recognize it. The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White recognizes the point, but does not dwell upon it. Attention is devoted chiefly to the contention that the tax is on elements of value not located in the state. It is rightly asserted that extra-state values were taken account of in making the assessment. From this is drawn the following conclusion: " I reiterate, therefore, that the rule which recognizes that for the pur- pose of assessing tangible property in one State you may take its full worth and then add to the value of such property a proportion of the total capital stock, is a rule whereby it is announced that the sum of all the property, or an arbitrary part thereof, situated in other States, may be joined to the valuation of property in one State for the purpose of increasing the taxation within that State." ^^ This sentence, isolated from its context, has the vice of not recog- nizing that values in the taxing state were included in the total, and that the total was then divided in proportions according to a plan that assumed to allocate to the taxing state only that part which rightfully belonged to it. The state certainly adds some- thing to the value of the tangible property within the state, but it does not necessarily add extra-state elements by pooling all values in all the states, and then dipping out the portion which it regards as the contribution of the taxing state. It is by neglecting the division which follows the addition that Mr. Justice White is con- vinced that "it cannot be said that this vast excess does not em- brace property situated outside of Ohio, when both the text of the statute of that State and such text as expounded by the Supreme Court of the State clearly show that the sum of the excess is arrived «» i6s U. S. 194, 226, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 (1897). " Ibid., i94> 240-41.