Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/652

616 6i6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW lines throughout the United States. An attempt was made by the state of Pennsylvania to tax a portion of this mass on the ground that this portion had a situs in Pennsylvania. The par- ticular method taken of estimating Pennsylvania's share of the entire mass was to take that proportion of all the mass of cars which the miles of road on which the cars traveled within the state bore to the total mileage in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States held that it was legally possible to divide the entire mass among the states and that the method of division adopted by the state of Pennsylvania was a reasonable one. It will be seen, therefore, that wherever a mass of property is invested in interstate business it is not only possible to assign a situs at large to the entire mass wherever the business is carried on, but also to estimate the situs of any particular part of the mass by some reasonable method of aliquot division. This method of determining the share of an interstate mass which may be regarded as situated in a particular state has been appUed to lines of railroad,"® to a fleet of steamships,**' to a mass of railroad cars such as palace cars or refrigerator cars,"^ to the stock of express companies,"^ and to the property of telegraph and telephone companies.^^^ Not only is the tangible property of an interstate business to be thus divided; the intangible "corporate excess" is capable of the same reasonable division among the states within which business is done.*^* "« Pittsburgh C. C. & S. L. Ry. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421 (1894); Louisville & Nash- ville R. R. V. Greene, 244 U. S. 522 (191 7); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. p.^ullivan, 173 Fed. 456 (1909)- "^ County Commissioners ti. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 128 N. C. 558, 39 S. E. 558 (1901), affirmed. i« Pullman's P. C. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18 (1888); American R. T. Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70 (1899); Pullman's P. C. Co. v. Twombly, 29 Fed. 658 (1887); Board of Assessors v. Pullman's P. C. Co., 60 Fed. 37 (1894); Morrell R. C. Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 32 Ky. L. Rep. 1383, 108 S. W. 926 (1908). "' Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194 (1896) ; Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky 166 U. S. 171, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527 (1897); Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490 (1904); Wells Fargo & Co.'s Express v. Crawford County, 63 Ark. 576, 40 S. W. 710 (1897); Southern Express Co. v. Patterson, 122 Tenn. 279, 123 S. W. 353 (1909). "0 Massachusetts v. Western U. T. Co., 141 U. S. 40 (1890); Western U. T. Co. t. Taggart, 163 U. S. i (1896) (affirming s. c. 141 Ind. 281, 40 N. E. 105) (1894); Western U. T. Co. V. Poe, 64 Fed. 9 (1894); State v. Western U. T. Co., 165 Mo. 502, 65 S. W. 775 (1901). '" Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194 (1897); Pullman Co. v. Trapp, 186