Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co.
Decision Date | 26 August 1897 |
Citation | 82 F. 257 |
Parties | FRASER v. McCONWAY & TORLEY CO. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Pennsylvania |
Knox & Reed, for complainant.
Thos Patterson and N. S. Williams, for defendant.
The first section of an act of assembly of the state of Pennsylvania approved the 15th day of June, 1897, provides:
'That all persons, firms, associations, or corporations employing one or more foreign born unnaturalized male persons over twenty-one years of age within this commonwealth, shall be and are hereby taxed at the rate of three cents per day for each day each of such foreign born unnaturalized male persons may be employed, which tax shall be paid into the respective county treasuries; one-half of which tax to be distributed among the respective school districts of each county, in proportion to the number of schools in said districts; the other half of said tax shall be used by the proper county authorities for defraying the general expenses of county government.'
It is further provided by the act:
'That all persons, firms, associations, and corporations shall have the right to deduct the amount of the tax provided for in this act from the waves of any and all employees, for the use of the proper county and school district as aforesaid.'
As the employer is authorized by the act to deduct from the wages of the employe the prescribed tax, it is quite clear that the tax is upon the employe, and not upon the employer. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 239, 10 Sup.Ct. 533.
The court is here called upon to consider whether these provisions of this act of assembly are in conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States declares:
'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
The general purpose and scope of these constitutional provisions were thus stated by Mr. Justice Field in delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the United States in Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31, 5 Sup.Ct. 539:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monroe v. Pape
...C.C.D.Kan.1891, 45 F. 283; Davenport v. Board of Trustees of Cloverport High School, D.C.D.Ky.1896, 72 F. 689; Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co., C.C.D.Pa.1897, 82 F. 257; Crystal Springs Land & Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles, C.C.S.D.Cal.1896, 76 F. 148, affirmed 177 U.S. 169, 20 S.Ct. 573......
-
Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission
...v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 696, 18 S.Ct. 456, 475, 42 L.Ed. 890; In re Tiburcio Parrott, C.C., 1 F. 481, 508, 509; Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co., C.C., 82 F. 257. 8 Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255; Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225, 44 S.Ct. 21, 68 L.Ed. 2......
-
Mahone v. Waddle
...3 Fed.Cas. 294 (No. 1,361) (C.C.D.La.1878); Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 Fed.Cas. 252 (No. 6,546) (C.C.D.Cal.1879); Fraser v. M'Conway & Torley Co., 82 F. 257 (C.C.D.Pa.1897). In short, when Congress enacted section 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, it took the last step needed to transform section 1 of......
- Woodson v. State