[531] Ibid. 386.
[532] 315 U.S. 657, 660, 661 (1942).
[533] 4 Wheat. 316, 429 (1819).
[534] 319 U.S. 94 (1943).
[535] 306 U.S. 398 (1939).
[536] Wheeling Steel Corp. _v._ Fox, 298 U.S. 193 (1936). _See also_ Memphis Gas Co. _v._ Beeler, 315 U.S. 649, 652 (1942).
[537] Adams Express Co. _v._ Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194 (1897).
[538] Alpha Portland Cement Co. _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 268 U.S. 203 (1925).
[539] Cream of Wheat Co. _v._ Grand Forks County, 253 U.S. 325 (1920).
[540] Newark Fire Ins. Co. _v._ State Board, 307 U.S. 313, 318, 324 (1939). Although the eight judges affirming this tax were not in agreement as to the reasons to be a.s.signed in justification of this result, the holding appears to be in line with the dictum uttered by the late Chief Justice Stone in Curry _v._ McCanless (307 U.S. at 368) to the effect that the taxation of a corporation by a State where it does business, measured by the value of the intangibles used in its business there, does not preclude the State of incorporation from imposing a tax measured by all its intangibles.
[541] Delaware L. & W.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341 (1905).
[542] Louisville & J. Ferry Co. _v._ Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385 (1903).
[543] Kansas City Ry. _v._ Kansas, 240 U.S. 227 (1916); Kansas City, M.
& B.R. Co. _v._ Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (1916).
[544] Schwab _v._ Richardson, 263 U.S. 88 (1923).
[545] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (1910); Pullman Co. _v._ Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (1910); Looney _v._ Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (1917); International Paper Co. _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 246 U.S. 135 (1918).
[546] Cudahy Packing Co. _v._ Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929).
[547] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U.S. 350 (1914).
[548] Atlantic Refining Co. _v._ Virginia, 302 U.S. 22 (1937).
[549] American Mfg Co. _v._ St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919). Nor does a State license tax on the production of electricity violate the due process clause because it may be necessary, to ascertain, as an element in its computation, the amounts delivered in another jurisdiction.--Utah Power & Light Co. _v._ Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932).
[550] James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co. 302 U.S. 134 (1937).
[551] Union Refrigerator Transit Co. _v._ Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[552] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Kentucky, 222 U.S. 63 (1911).
[553] Old Dominion Steamship Co. _v._ Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905).
[554] 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[555] Pullman"s Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).
[556] Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 294-297, 307 (1944).--The case was said to be governed by New York Central Railroad _v._ Miller, 202 U.S. 584, 596 (1906). As to the problem of multiple taxation of such airplanes, which had in fact been taxed proportionately by other States, the Court declared that the "taxability of any part of this fleet by any other State than Minnesota, in view of the taxability of the entire fleet by that State, is not now before us." Justice Jackson, in a concurring opinion, would treat Minnesota"s right [to tax as] exclusive of any similar right elsewhere.
[557] Johnson Oil Ref. Co. _v._ Oklahoma ex rel. Mitch.e.l.l, 290 U.S. 158 (1933).
[558] Pittsburgh, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894).
[559] Wallace _v._ Hines, 253 U.S. 66 (1920).--For example, the ratio of track mileage within the taxing State to total track mileage cannot be employed in evaluating that portion of total railway property found in said State when the cost of the lines in the taxing State was much less than in other States and the most valuable terminals of the railroad were located in other States. _See also_ Fargo _v._ Hart, 193 U.S. 490 (1904); Union Tank Line _v._ Wright, 249 U.S. 275 (1919).
[560] Great Northern R. Co. _v._ Minnesota, 278 U.S. 503 (1929).
[561] Illinois Cent. R. Co. _v._ Minnesota, 309 U.S. 157 (1940).
[562] Lawrence _v._ State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932).
[563] Shaffer _v._ Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920); Travis _v._ Yale & T.
Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1920).
[564] New York ex rel. Cohn _v._ Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937).
[565] Maguire _v._ Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920).
[566] Guaranty Trust Co. _v._ Virginia, 305 U.S. 19, 23 (1938).
[567] Whitney _v._ Graves, 299 U.S. 366 (1937).
[568] Underwood Typewriter Co. _v._ Chamberlain, 254 U.S. 113 (1920); Ba.s.s, Ratcliff & Gretton _v._ State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 271 (1924).
[569] Hans Rees" Sons _v._ North Carolina, 283 U.S. 123 (1931).
[570] Matson Nav. Co. _v._ State Board, 297 U.S. 441 (1936).
[571] Wisconsin _v._ J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 448-449 (1940).
Dissenting, Justice Roberts, along with Chief Justice Hughes and Justices McReynolds and Reed, stressed the fact that the use and disburs.e.m.e.nt by the corporation at its home office of income derived from operations in many States does not depend on, and cannot be controlled by, any law of Wisconsin. The act of disbursing such income as dividends, he contended, is "one wholly beyond the reach of Wisconsin"s sovereign power, one which it cannot effectively command, or prohibit or condition." The a.s.sumption that a proportion of the dividends distributed is paid out of earnings in Wisconsin for the year immediately preceding payment is arbitrary and not borne out by the facts. Accordingly, "if the exaction is an income tax in any sense it is such upon the stockholders [many of whom are nonresidents] and is obviously bad."--_See also_ Wisconsin _v._ Minnesota Mining Co., 311 U.S. 452 (1940).
[572] Great A. & P. Tea Co. _v._ Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412 (1937).
[573] Equitable L. a.s.sur. Soc. _v._ Pennsylvania, 238 U.S. 143 (1915).
[574] Provident Sav. Life a.s.sur. Soc. _v._ Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103 (1915).
[575] Continental Co. _v._ Tennessee, 311 U.S. 5, 6 (1940), (Emphasis supplied).
[576] Palmetto F. Ins. Co. _v._ Connecticut, 272 U.S. 295 (1926).
[577] St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. _v._ Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346 (1922).
[578] Connecticut General Co. _v._ Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 (1938).