Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/258

 The Green Bag

240

Taxation (Federal Corporation Tax Act). “The Federal Corporation Tax." Editorial. 70 Central Law journal 91 (Feb. 4). “By the federal statute . . . property is sought in a ‘twilight zone’ between capital and earnings, the former being corporate assets,

the latter shareholders‘

assets.

If

the corporation can be said to have any title to the latter, it is fugitive, and perishable of its own instability. . . . “A summary of the situation is, that the right to tax corporations on their net income is based, if it exists at all, on mere technical

ownership with the burden falling no more on it than on any other stakeholder or trustee, and this tax invades state olicy in respect of something that has no ederal aspect in any way whatever. As neither the burden nor the invasion seems constitutional, the statute

ought to fall. The ﬁght upon the law would agpear more likely to succeed, if made by t e owners of the proﬁts than by their stake holders-the corporations themselves." Taxation (Proposed Income Tax Amend ment). Speech of Hon. William E. Borah of Idaho, in the United States Senate, Feb. 10, 1910. Congressional Record, v. 45, no. 44, p. 1843 (Feb. 14). Senator Borah’s argument was carefully elaborated for the pu ose of showing, by referring to leading au‘tﬁorities, that the in come tax amendment, if adopted, would not

authorize the taxation of incomes from state bonds and municipal securities, nor the taxa

tion of the instrumentalities of the states. The speech was delivered in reply to Governor Hughes’ objections to the proposed amend ment.

“The Proposed Income Tax Amendment to the Federal

Constitution, December 10»

1909." 'By Prof. Raleigh C. Minor. 15 Virginia Law Register 737 (Feb) "It may, I think, be assumed with certainty that, but for the troublesome question of slavery, the framers of the Constitution would have authorized Congress to levy direct taxes, as well as indirect taxes, according

to the rule of uniformity. . . . Under present conditions the vicious rule of apportionment, applicable to direct taxes, blocks the way to such a reform, and the people and Congress must continue, even against their better judg ment, to obtain revenue from a tariﬁ on im ports, with all its temptation to high protection extravagance on the part of government, and extortion on the part of the domestic manu facturer and the trust." This writer considers the effect of the words "from whatever source derived" in the pro posed constitutional amendment, "is clearly

to

abrogate the

principle enunciated

by

Marshall, and enforced in the Income Tax

case. If there were nothin else to condemn the proposed amendment, 1; is should suﬁice. The legislatures of the states are asked to conﬁde to that largely alien body, Congress,

the power practically to wipe out or cripple the borrowing power of their states and cities,

in order to relieve Congress of an embarrass ing deﬁcit induced by its own evil protec tionist] policy, and which it coul easily remedy in a year or two, if it chose to recede from that policy. There is a certain im pudent audacity in this request of the Re publican leaders that throws the only gleam of humor over the situation that this paper has been able to evoke." Title. “Titles Derived under Judicial Proceedings—Illinois Law." By Prof. Lou's May Greely. 4 Illinois Law Review 472 (Feb.). In this pa er the law relating to the title ac uired in fllinois in reliance on judgments an decrees of court is discussed with com ndious citations, eleven leading principles i ‘ng summarized in succinct and concrete orrn. Uniformity of Laws. “A Revival of Codiﬁcation." By Prof. Francis M. Burdick. 10 Columbia Law Review 118 (Feb.). “The favor with which this bill [the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act] was received by state legislatures induced the Commissioners to attempt the production of other bills. During 1902-3, Professor Samuel Williston of Harvard, at the re nest

of the Commissioners, prepared a dra t of an Act to make uniform the Law of Sales. It followed prett closely the lines of the En lish Sale of oods Act. In this form, it id not prove entirely satisfactory to the Committee on Commercial Law, who pro ceeded to make numerous changes in its provisions and to add a number of sections on the transfer of propert in goods by means of documents of title. X5 a result of these changes, a bill was sent out which was not

only at variance with the En lish Sale of Goods act, but with existing rues of law in

most of our states. It has not met with the legislative favor which was accorded to the Negotiable Instruments Law, and has been adopted in but ﬁve states and one territory. Possibly this is due in part to the fact that the commissioners disregarded udge Chalmers’ advice and went ‘above an beyond experi ence'. Legislators may agree with him in the belief that when codiﬁers do this, they ‘are codifying in the air and will probably do more harm than good to commerce an mer cantile law. . . . "So far as certiﬁcates of stock are concerned. there is no statute in England or in any of our states which carries their negotiability to the extent now proposed, nor is there a

decision of any court recognizing a mercan tile usa e of such negotrability. . . . The propose bill does not profess to codif existing law, but to work a legal refonn. t breathes the spirit of Bentham, not that of Chalmers. . . . "There is a fascination, undoubtedly, in restating the law in accordance with one's own notion of what the law ought to be. . . . Whether the Commissioners ought to yield