Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/396

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT sale of a stock of merchandise in New Orleans, such as was under consideration in the case of Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes. If the question is to be determined on principle, the Fourteenth Amendment, if it precludes the taxation of the one in New York, seems equally to preclude the taxation of the other. "That the principle laid down in the Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, will not in all cases be carried by the Supreme Court to its logical conclusion is indicated by the subsequent decision in New York Central Railroad v. Miller. The case was one of a franchise tax, imposed under a law requiring every corporation created by the state to pay a tax to be computed ' upon the basis of the amount of its capital stock employed within this state and upon each dollar of such amount.'" It was held that the company was taxable in New York on all its cars and that no de duction, on account of cars constantly em ployed out of the state, could be made from its entire capital, in order to ascertain the capital stock employed within the state. This was a tax upon a franchise while the Kentucky case was of a tax upon the cars, but Mr. Moore declares that though the New York case does not in express terms conflict with the previous decision, " yet tested by principle, it disappoints the expectation, which those decisions had raised, that the Fourteenth Amendment would be consist ently applied so as to prevent the double taxation of tangible movables." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Treaties). Amos S. Hershey in the American Political Science Review (V. i, p. 393), adds another to the numerous articles discussing the Japanese school question, under the title " The Jap anese School Question and the Treaty-Making Power." "The writer, although by no means a strict constructionist, does not believe that the fed eral government has the right, by treaty or otherwise, to encroach upon the police power or reserved rights of the states to the extent of directing or controlling their public school systems. If there are any constitutional limi tations upon the treaty-making power, if the states retain any autonomy whatsoever, they surely preserve a right to the exclusive con

367

trol of the schools which they maintain out of their resources. What greater trespass upon the province of self-government, what more serious violation of fundamental rights can be imagined than federal interference with a state's management of its own schools? If our federal government should barter away such fundamental rights as these, and the courts hold such action constitutional, then the double structure of state and federal gov ernment which our fathers reared will crumble into ruins, and a new centralized edifice will take its place in which the states will be reduced to mere provinces or administrative units." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. " The State Tax on Illinois Central Gross Receipts — Another View," by James Parker Hall, Illinois Law Review (V. ii, p. 21). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. " Centralization by Construction and Interpretation of the Constitution," by Hon. J. M. Dickinson, Albany Law Journal (V. lxix, p. 98). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. "Interstate Judicial Relations," by Wolfe Fink, Common wealth Law Review (V. iv, p. 97). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. "The Growth of the Commerce Clause," by John W. Davis, American Lawyer (V. xv, p. 171). CONTRACTS. " Formation of Contract in English Law," by Ernst Schuster, Canadian Law Times (V. xxvii, p. 248). CORPORATIONS. " Corporation Lawyers," by William Wirt Howe, Yale Law Journal (V. xvi, p. 497). Defending the corporation adviser against popular misjudgment. CORPORATIONS (Debentures or Shares?). Man ever seeks to have his cake and eat it too. The short article on " The Evolution of the Debenture " by George A. MacDonald, in the April Law Quarterly Review (V. xxiii, p. 195), treats two recent English promoters' attempts to appeal to that tendency in human nature by giving " a hybrid commodity which the writer has ventured to call the ' Sharedebenture,' and which from the legal stand point needs careful consideration. "Shares and debentures are two very dis tinct orders of investment. Each has, or has hitherto had, its essential features, its inevi table advantages and disadvantages. Shares alone reap the full measure of successful enter