James Clark McReynolds,
Cudahy Packing Company v. Hinkle…
“ If the statute sought to impose a tax on corporations engaged wholly in interstate commerce, or if the taxes laid a direct burden upon interstate commerce, or if they were laid upon property without the state, or if they were unjustly discriminatory, the fact that they are small in amount would, of course, be immaterial. ”
James Clark McReynolds,
Cudahy Packing Company v. Hinkle…
“ But that was said in cases where the statute did not fix any maximum. The statement seems to me legally unsound. If it were true, that every tax imposed generally upon a foreign corporation doing both interstate and intrastate business taxed its interstate business and its property outside the state then most of such corporations would largely escape taxation. By the same process of reasoning all taxes laid by a state upon property within its borders, which is used in both intrastate and interstate commerce, would be a tax on interstate commerce. But such taxes have been universally upheld. ”
James Clark McReynolds,
Cudahy Packing Company v. Hinkle…
“ The taxes are not laid upon interstate commerce. They are not measured by the amount of interstate commerce. They do not grow, or shrink, according to the volume of interstate commerce or of the capital used in it. They are not furtively directed against such commerce. The taxes would be precisely the same in amount if the corporation did in Washington no interstate business whatsoever. ”
