tation _v._ State Tax Comm., 297 U.S. 650 (1936);
Western Live Stock _v._ Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938).
[693] _See_ p. 193.
[694] _See_ pp. 150-160.
[695] _See_ p. 189.
[696] 303 U.S. 250 (1938).
[697] Ibid. 254.
[698] Ibid. 255-256.
[699] 305 U.S. 434 (1939).
[700] Ibid. 439-440.
[701] 305 U.S. at 455 (1939).
[702] _See_ McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 309 U.S. 176,
188-189 (1940).
[703] Freeman _v._ Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 (1946).
[704] 329 U.S. 249.
[705] The Court relied particularly on Adams Mfg. Co. _v._ Storen, 304
U.S. 307 (1938) in which the multiple taxation test had been used.
[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 attitude of the same Justices in United
States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 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);
Bass, 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 assessed 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 parti
|