[706] Justice Black dissented without opinion. Justice Douglas, speaking also for Justice Murphy, contended that the sale had been local, and that the only interstate agency employed had been the mails, an argument which squares badly with the att.i.tude of the same Justices in United States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters a.s.soc., 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
[707] 330 U.S. 422 (1947), reaffirming Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. _v._ Tax Comm., 302 U.S. 90 (1937).
[708] 330 U.S. at 433.
[709] Justices Murphy, Douglas, and Rutledge thought the decision correct as to receipts from foreign commerce. Speaking for them, Justice Douglas made an effort to resurrect Maine _v._ Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217 (1891). Justice Black dissented without opinion.
[710] 334 U.S. 653.
[711] Ibid. 663, citing Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938); and Ratterman _v._ Western Union Teleg. Co., 127 U.S.
411 (1888).
[712] 335 U.S. 80.
[713] 337 U.S. 662, 666, 677-678, 680.
[714] _See supra_, pp. 196, 204-207.
[715] 247 U.S. 321 (1918).
[716] Ibid. 328-329.
[717] Shaffer _v._ Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920).
[718] Underwood Typewriter Co. _v._ Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113 (1920); Ba.s.s, Ratcliff & Gretton _v._ State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271 (1924).
[719] Hans Rees" Sons _v._ North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123, 132, 133 (1931). In this case a North Carolina tax was a.s.sessed on the income of a New York corporation, which bought leather, manufactured it in North Carolina, and sold its products at wholesale and retail in New York. The Court observed: "The difficulty of making an exact apportionment is apparent and hence, when the State has adopted a method not intrinsically arbitrary, it will be sustained until proof is offered of an unreasonable and arbitrary application in particular cases." The decisions in the Underwood and Ba.s.s cases, _supra_, "are not authority for the conclusion that where a corporation manufactures in one State and sells in another, the net profits of the entire transaction, as a unitary enterprise, may be attributed, regardless of evidence, to either State."
[720] Atlantic Coast Line _v._ Daughton, 262 U.S. 413 (1923).
[721] Matson Nav. Co. _v._ State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936). _See also_ Butler Bros. _v._ McColgan, 315 U.S. 501 (1942), where the tax was sustained under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[722] Memphis Gas Co. _v._ Beeler, 315 U.S. 649 (1942).
[723] Ibid. 656-657
[724] Spector Motor Service _v._ O"Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951).
[725] 114 U.S. 196 (1885).
[726] Hays _v._ Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 17 How. 596 (1855).
[727] Packet Co. _v._ Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); _see also_ Transportation Co. _v._ Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 (1883).
[728] Ayer & L. Tie Co. _v._ Kentucky, 202 U.S. 409 (1906). For a resume of the rules for taxing vessels _see_ Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 314-315 (1944), note 2.
[729] Old Dominion S.S. Co. _v._ Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905): a vessel enrolled in New York at domicile of owner, but operating wholly in Virginia, was held taxable in Virginia.
[730] 336 U.S. 169 (1949).
[731] Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292 (1944).
[732] He also invoked New York Central and H.R.R. Co. _v._ Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906), where although 12 to 64 per cent of the rolling stock of the railroad was outside of New York throughout the tax year, New York was nevertheless allowed to tax it all because no part was in any other State throughout the year. The case is atypical, a const.i.tutional sport; _cf._ Union Refrigerator Transit Co. _v._ Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[733] 322 U.S. at 301-302.
[734] "The apportionment theory is a mongrel one, a cross between desire not to interfere with State taxation and desire at the same time not utterly to crush out interstate commerce. It is a practical, but rather illogical, device to prevent duplication of tax burdens on vehicles in transit. It is established in our decisions and has been found more or less workable with more or less arbitrary formulae of apportionment.
Nothing either in theory or in practice commends it for transfer to air commerce."--Ibid. 306.
[735] Ibid. 308.
[736] Pullman"s Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).
[737] 322 U.S. 309.
[738] 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[739] Ibid. 622.
[740] Hendrick _v._ Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[741] Kane _v._ New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).
[742] Morf _v._ Bingaman, 298 U.S. 407 (1936).
[743] Ingels _v._ Morf, 300 U.S. 290 (1937).
[744] Clark _v._ Poor, 274 U.S. 554 (1927); Hicklin _v._ Coney, 290 U.S.
109 (1933).
[745] Interstate Busses Corp. _v._ Blodgett, 276 U.S. 245 (1928); Continental Baking Co. _v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).
[746] Aero Mayflower Transit Co. _v._ Georgia Pub. Serv. Commission, 295 U.S. 285 (1935).
[747] Interstate Transit _v._ Lindsey, 283 U.S. 183 (1931). _Cf._ Sprout _v._ South Bend, 277 U.S. 163 (1928).
[748] _See_ Dixie Ohio Express Co. _v._ State Rev. Comm., 306 U.S. 72 (1939); _also_ Clark _v._ Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 (1939); Aero Mayflower Transit Co. _v._ Board of R.R. Commrs., 332 U.S. 495, 503-504 (1947). Here was sustained a State statute imposing a flat tax of $10 annually upon each vehicle operated by a motor carrier over the State"s highways, and a fee of one half of one per cent of the carrier"s gross operating revenue from its operations within the State, with an annual minimum of $15 per vehicle, in consideration of the use of the highways and in addition to all other motor vehicle license fees and taxes. This was held, as applied to a carrier engaged solely in interstate commerce, not to burden such commerce unconst.i.tutionally, although the proceeds went into the State"s general fund subject to appropriation for other than highway purposes. (Opinion by Rutledge, J., all concurring.) While a "State may not discriminate against or exclude such interstate traffic generally in the use of its highways, * * * [it is not] required to furnish those facilities to it free of charge or indeed on equal terms with other traffic not inflicting similar destructive effects. * * *
Interstate traffic equally with intrastate may be required to pay a fair share of the cost and maintenance reasonably related to the use made of the highways." Ibid., headnote 6.
[749] 339 U.S. 542 (1950).
[750] Ibid. 561.
[751] Justice Roberts for the Court in Great Northern R. Co. _v._ Washington, 300 U.S. 154, 159-161 (1937).
[752] Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. _v._ Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386 (1892); New York ex rel. New York Electric Lines Co. _v._ Squire, 145 U.S. 175, 191 (1892).
[753] Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co. _v._ Philadelphia, 190 U.S. 160 (1903); Mackay Teleg. & Cable Co. _v._ Little Rock, 250 U.S. 94, 99 (1919).