Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/202

 186

The Green Bag

of the King's Bench Division of the High

Court, to which judge cially commercial law isaappointesdie. . . skilled in “The judge of this court, upon a motion to place any case upon the commercial list, de cides the preliminary question as to what, if any, pleadings are necessary. He sometimes makes a note of the points of defense then stated and orders that such memorandum stand as the defendant's pleading, or he may

order the defendant's lawyer to write a letter to the plaintiff brieﬂy setting out points relied upon. He also orders the parties to exchange for inspection any documents upon which either may wish to rely and frequently secures admissions by counsel of matters not seriously in dispute. . . . The familiarity with the questions in dispute which the judge ac quires before trial enables him to reach a decision on the real merits with greater cer tainty and promptness." See Juries. Race Discrimination. "Race Distinctions in American Law, X." By Gilbert Thomas Stephenson. 43 American Law Review 869 (Nov.-Dec.).

_ This instalment presents many facts regard ing the. standing of the negro in the court room since 1865, as spectator, as judge, as lawyer, as witness, and as juror; statutes pro

yiding for separate courts and different pun ishments for negroes are also considered. Real Property. “Destruction of a Demised Building.” By James Edward Hogg. 26 Law Quarterly Review 7t (Jan.). "When the question of the liability of a tenant of an upper ﬂoor that has ph sicall disappeared does come before the Englis

Courts, ‘It is pretty certain that considerable light will be thrown on a part of our real prosper?’ law that is still very obscure." e apital and Income, Perpetuities. Taxation (Federal Corporation Tax Act).

The literature of this subject is now largely taken up with replies to the attacks on the constitutionality of the law with which the discussion opened three months ago. Whether those attacks have now been effectively met, and whether the preponderating weight of authority at present favors the position that the act is unconstitutional, the reader must Judge for himself. Professor Frank. Goodnow's article (see 22 Green Bag 128, ch.) was one of the most convincing of those in which the act was argued unconstitutional. His arguments seem to have chieﬂy been in the mind of the follow ing defenders of the Administration meas ure:— "The Constitutionality of the Federal Cor poration Tax." By Ralph W. Aigler. 8 Michigan Law Review 206 (Jan.).

(_1) "Professor Goodnow has taken the position that the act is unconstitutional in so far as it includes income derived from property, on the ground that under the in

come tax decision such tax would have to be apportioned. Just how he arrives at that conclusion does not appear. In another part of his article he takes the view that the tax is really upon the franchise or privilege. If he is correct in that, necessarily the tax must be an excise, no matter how its amount is

measured. And if the tax be considered as imposed on business, it is equally an excise. In neither case need it be apportioned. . . . (2) “It can no longer be seriously disputed that Congress, under the taxing power, has the right to lay an excise upon inherit ances. . . . The point made by Mr. Justice White in Knowlton v. Moore (178 U. S. 41, 59), would seem to be an almost complete

answer to the argument that the corporation tax is invalid because it taxes a matter under the exclusive control of the state. This tax is no more a burden upon or an interference with the state's power of control than was the inheritance tax. . . . (3) "There is no doubt of the geogra hical uniformity of the corporation tax. here can, therefore, be no question as to its validity on that point." 22

Mr. Pierson's article in the Outlook (see Green Bag 29, Jan.) drew forth the

following reply: “Is the Federal Corporation Tax Constitu tional?” By Hugh A. Bayrie. Outlook, v. 94, p. 20 (Jan. 1). “The writer has been unable to ﬁnd any decision denying to Congress the power to impose excise taxes on the exercise of private privileges or franchises conferred by the states. He has found a number of decisions recognizin the right of Congress to tax the exercise 0 such privileges. . . . "As Mr. Pierson's objection is that the Corporation Tax imposes a tax on'the exer cise of privileges pertaining to the corporate form, and as the corporation, in exercising

those rivileges, does not discharge a govern menta function, but merely a private func tion, I conclude that the statute does not in vade the constitutional barrier of state sov ereignty.” Bench and Bar was one of the ﬁrst hostile critics of the act (see 22 Green Bag 29, Jan.), and further considers the subject. "The Proposed Federal Incorporation Law." Editorial.

20 Bench and Bar 2 (Jan.).

"Manifestly no business corporation can be denuded of all local characteristics or activi ties. . . . If it were impossible expressly to authorize a corporation chartered by the federal government to manufacture its raw material within a state, it is at least very doubtful whether the same result could be accom indirectly b stock authorizing a federa lished corporation to holdy in a state corporation." See Government, Tariﬁ. Taxation (Proposed Income Tax Amend ment).

Torts.

See Government.

See Quasi-Contracts.