Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

eral of Minnesota, and Mr. Egbert S. Oakley, filed a brief for the state of Minnesota as amici curiæ:

The Federal government is supreme within the scope of its delegated powers, and the state governments are equally supreme in the exercise of those powers not delegated by them nor inhibited to them; and when these supreme functions are exercised by the Federal and state governments within their respective limitations, they never come into conflict. But if either government enacts a law upon a matter which is within the exclusive concern and power of regulation of the other, the validity of such law depends upon the supremacy of the power by which it was enacted.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199205, 6 L. ed. 23, 70-72; License Cases, 5 How. 504-588, 12 L. ed. 256–294.

The United States, nct possessing, as the states do, the right to regulate successions, when the United States calls into play its taxing power over the subject of the passage or receipt of property by death, the extent of its authority is to be measured solely by the scope of the taxing power conferred by the Constitution.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747.

While the taxing power of Congress extends to all usual subjects of taxation, including receipt or transmission of property occasioned by death, yet its power to tax cannot be so exercised, in the constitutional sense, as to impose burdens on the exclusive power of the states to regulate successions.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 59, 44 L. ed. 969, 977, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. Whether an exercise of the taxing power by Congress, as manifested by the act in question, does or does not burden or impair the states' power of regulation of successions, depends upon the operation and effect of the act as enforced, and not upon the manner in which the taxing scheme has been characterized.

Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326.

There is a difference between the Estate Tax Act and the act involved and construed in Knowlton v. Moore.

Re Hamlin, 7 A.L.R. 701, and note,

226 N. Y. 407, 124 N. E. 4; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 471, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 538, 104 Atl. 765.

The question of burden of state power of regulation of successions must be determined by the mode of the imposition of the exaction, and its operation and effect as enforced, and not by mere name or characterization of the particular tax.

Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 48 L. ed. 761, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 60 L. ed. 617, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 38 L. ed. 773, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 664, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 363, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273.

The power to regulate descent and succession of property on death is a sovereign power, and belongs exclusively to the states.

United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466, 51 L. ed. 882, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1127, 1197; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906.

The so-called succession or inheritance tax enactments by the several states were but an exercise of the power of regulating the devolution of property by death.

The tax is upon the transfer of the net estate to the beneficiaries, and is paid by them or for their account proportionately; for no one else has any money to pay it.

Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Gleason v. Thaw, 236 U. S. 558, 59 L. ed. 717, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287.

If the tax is an estate tax, it is void as a regulation of the transfer, and as a tax on property without apportionment.

Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, Campbell's ed. ¶¶ 572, 573, 1056, 1094, 1103; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803.

Mr. J. Weston Allen, Attorney General of Massachusetts, by special leave, argued the cause and filed a brief for the commonwealth of Massachusetts as amicus curiæ:

The Federal estate tax cannot be sustained upon the grounds on which the succession taxes were sustained in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed.

99.

Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 103 Atl. 647; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 537, 104 Atl. 765; People v. Pasfield, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. E. 286; State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Ct. 139 Minn. 210, 166 N. W. 125; People v. Bemis, 68 Colo. 48, 189 Pac. 32; State v. First Calumet Trust & Sav. Bank, Ind. App., 125 N. E. 200; Northern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812, affirmed in C. C. A. 262 Fed. 52; Re Miller, -, 16 A.L.R. 694, 195 Pac. 413; Woodward v. United States (March 14, 1921, Ct. Cl.); Hanson, Death Duties, 6th ed. pp. 1, 2.

Cal.

The several states possess the exclusive power to regulate and control the descent and distribution of property.

Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55, 52 L. ed. 95, 109, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 685, 24 L. ed. 558, 559; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 550, 23 L. ed. 588, 590; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 124, 20 L. ed. 122, 125.

The Federal estate tax imposed by the Act of September 8, 1916, is, in its operation and effect, an invasion of the sovereign power of the states to regulate the descent and distribution of property of decedents.

Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 65, 54 L. ed. 378, 385, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 214, 29 L. ed. 158, 165, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 285, 46 L. ed. 196, 200, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 456, 50 L. ed. 261, 267, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737.

The Federal estate tax is a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional because not apportioned in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Constitution.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 89, 44 L. ed. 969, 988, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Thomas v. United States, 192 Ù. S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; South Carolina v. United States, 39 Ct. Cl. 257, affirmed in 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; McCoach v Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 40 L.R.A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653, 45 S. W. 245; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ander Hamilton, Federalist, No. 21. ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Alex

Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney Gen

eral of Minnesota, and Mr. Egbert S. Oakley, filed a brief for the state of Minnesota as amici curiæ:

The Federal government is supreme within the scope of its delegated powers, and the state governments are equally supreme in the exercise of those powers not delegated by them nor inhibited to them; and when these supreme functions are exercised by the Federal and state governments within their respective limitations, they never come into conflict. But if either government enacts a law upon a matter which is within the exclusive concern and power of regulation of the other, the validity of such law depends upon the supremacy of the power by which it was enacted.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199205, 6 L. ed. 23, 70-72; License Cases, 5 How. 504-588, 12 L. ed. 256-294.

The United States, nct possessing, as the states do, the right to regulate successions, when the United States calls into play its taxing power over the subject of the passage or receipt of property by death, the extent of its authority is to be measured solely by the scope of the taxing power conferred by the Constitution.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747.

While the taxing power of Congress extends to all usual subjects of taxation, including receipt or transmission of property occasioned by death, yet its power to tax cannot be so exercised, in the constitutional sense, as to impose burdens on the exclusive power of the states to regulate successions.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 59, 44 L. ed. 969, 977, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. Whether an exercise of the taxing power by Congress, as manifested by the act in question, does or does not burden or impair the states' power of regulation of successions, depends upon the operation and effect of the act as enforced, and not upon the manner in which the taxing scheme has been characterized.

Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326.

There is a difference between the Estate Tax Act and the act involved and construed in Knowlton v. Moore.

Re Hamlin, 7 A.L.R. 701, and note,

226 N. Y. 407, 124 N. E. 4; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 471, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 538, 104 Atl. 765.

The question of burden of state power of regulation of successions must be determined by the mode of the imposition of the exaction, and its operation and effect as enforced, and not by mere name or characterization of the particular tax.

Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Înters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 48 L. ed. 761, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 60 L. ed. 617, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 38 L. ed. 773, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 664, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 363, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273.

The power to regulate descent and succession of property on death is a sovereign power, and belongs exclusively to the states.

United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466, 51 L. ed. 882, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1127, 1197; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906.

The so-called succession or inheritance tax enactments by the several states were but an exercise of the power of regulating the devolution of property by death.

Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 12 L. ed. 1168; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 289, 290, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1041, 1042, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073.

[blocks in formation]

Legislation referable to entirely dif ferent legislative powers may affect the The exaction attempted to be imposed same subject, but where either state by the Act of September 8, 1916, whethor nation possesses an exclusive power er considered as attaching to the inter-respecting a subject, the measures of the est that ceases at death, or as attaching other may not affect that subject until to the interest to which some person such exclusive power of the one shall succeeds at death, by its operation and have been expended. effect as enforced, is a form of regulation of successions, and directly interferes with and casts a burden upon state power of regulation.

Re Hamlin, 7 A.L.R. 701, and note, 226 N. Y. 407, 124 N. E. 4; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 471, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 537, 104 Atl. 765; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 103 Atl. 647; People v. Pasfield, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. É. 286; State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Ct. 139 Minn. 210, 166 N. W. 125; People v. Northern Trust Co. 7 A.L.R. 709, and note, 289 Ill. 475, 124 N. E. 662; Weeks' Estate, 169 Wis. 316, 172 N. W. 732; Re Sherman, 179 App. Div. 497, 166 N. Y. Supp. 19, affirmed in 222 N. Y. 540, 118 N. E. 1078; Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 536; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 868, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 906; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55, 52 L. ed. 95, 100, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Wall v. Bissell, 125 U. S. 382, 31 L. ed. 772, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 979; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. ed. 122; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 U. S. 1, 47 L. ed. 49, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 699; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533-541, 19 L. ed. 482-485; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 155, 55 L. ed. 389, 415, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; 12 C. J. 98; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 57 L. ed. 615, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 299; Re McKennan, 25 S. D. 369, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 126 N. W. 611; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Henderson v. New York (Henderson v. Wickham) 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 30, 54 L. ed. 367, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190. The question of power is not to be determined by the amount of the burden attempted to be cast.

Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 29 L. ed. 746, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524; Fair

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199, 205, 6 L. ed. 23, 71, 72; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399, 5 L. ed. 257, 290; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Brown Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Welton v. Misv. Maryland, 12 souri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. ed. 84, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 36, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 258, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803.

The transmission of property on death is acknowledged to be within the exclusive power of the states to regulate, and all manifestations of that power are designed for the entire result and the production of a uniform whole, by the authority solely possessing the power.

Re Merriam, 141 N. Y. 479, 36 N. E. 505; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97, 47 L. ed. 400, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U. S. 553, 51 L. ed. 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 44 L. ed. 998, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Petersen v. Iowa, 245 U. S. 170, 62 L. ed. 225, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109; Murdock v. Ward, 178 U. S. 139, 44 L. ed. 1009, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 775; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466, 479, 480, 51 L. ed. 882, 889, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Prevost v. Greneaux, 19 How. 1, 15 L. ed. 572; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 207, 47 L. ed. 439, 445, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U. S. 553, 562, 563, 51 L. ed. 314, 318, 319, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1139, 32

273.

It is wholly immaterial that a burden was not intended to be cast upon the state's power; if the act operates as such, its validity cannot be sustained.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Maxwell v. Bugbee, | Ct. Rep. 261; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. Ct. Rep. 2; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 47 L. ed. 1035, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 578, 39 L. ed. 759, 818, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Scholey v. Rew, 22 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed. 99; Wright | v. Blakeslee, 101 U. S. 174, 25 L. ed. 1048; Clapp v. Mason, 94 U. S. 589, 24 L. ed. 212; Mason v. Sargent, 104 U. S. 689, 26 L. ed. 894; Sturges v. United States, 117 U. S. 363, 29 L. ed. 920, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 767; United States v. Marion Trust Co. 74 C. C. A. 439, 143 Fed. 301, affirmed in 206 U. S. 567, 51 L. ed. 1191, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 797.

The operation and effect of the tax as laid and measured, and not the subject of taxation, determines whether a burden is cast upon the state's power of regulation.

Re Hamlin,, 226 N. Y. 407, 7 A.L.R. 701, 124 N. E. 4; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 471, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 35 L. ed. 649, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 319, 326, 34 L. ed. 455, 457, 460, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 185, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862.

The Federal power to tax on the occasion of transmission of property on death must be governed by the state's exclusive power of regulation of that subject, and its full execution.

M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; Re Stanford, 126 Cal. 112, 45 L.R.A. 788, 58 Pac. 462.

The operation and effect of the tax is to render the states powerless to regulate transmission of property on death in the manner sought by their measures.

45 L.R.A. 316, 71 Am. St. Rep. 749, 43 Atl. 79; The Federalist, No. 31; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176, 2 L. ed. 60, 73; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 57, 74, 44 L. ed. 969, 976, 983, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747.

Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 29 L. ed. 158, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 47 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 258 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. 803; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, Rep. 1118; Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 216 U. S. 1, 24, 54 L. ed. 355, 364, 30 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Galveston, H. & S. 218; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490, 48 A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 761, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; 12 C. L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Brown J. p. 98, § 128; Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27, 37, 46 L. ed. 785, 794, 22 Sup. 678; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. Ct. Rep. 576; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.7 L. ed. 481; Cope's Estate, 191 Pa. 1, S. 251, 254, 256, 52 L. ed. 778, 780, 781, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199, 205, 6 L. ed. 23, 70, 72; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399, 5 L. ed. 257, 299; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 16 L. ed. 644; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 52 L. ed. 1031, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135, 62 L. ed. 624, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 617; Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292, 62 L. ed. 295, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126; Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66, 64 L. ed. 782, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 435; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 60 L. ed. 617, 36 Sup.

No power exists in either state or nation which involves the functions of one by the other.

Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L. ed. 227; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724.

The subject of taxation is the transfer, and necessarily involves the interests of the transferees.

Seligman, Essays in Taxn. p. 395; Bastable, Public Finance, p. 249; Re Gould, 156 N. Y. 423, 51 N. E. 287; Dixon v. Russell, 78 N. J. L. 296, 73 Atl. 47; Re Westurn, 152 N. Y. 93, 46 N. E. 315; Winans v. Atty. Gen. [1910] A. C.

« ForrigeFortsett »