t06 OCTOBER TERM, Opinion of the Court. 909 U. 8. ?ph 3, of the Constitution of the United States. Am?s, 188 U.S. 351; Hanley v. K?insas Cit?l $outh?wa R. R. cO., 187 U.S. 619; $trad]ord v. City Council o! Montgomwit , 110 Alabama, 619; $tockard v. Morgan, 185 U. 8. 27; U.S. 622. No counsel appeared for defendaufs in error. Ma. Jusr?c? D?,x delivered the opinion of the court. These esses were submitted together and are in all. respects of an act of the legislature of Alabama imposing lieease tax?, "to better provide for the revenue of the Sta'?e," General Acts, 1903, p. 207, which reads as follows: "For each person engaged in the business of buying and selling futures for speculation or on commition, either for themselves or for other persons, and each place of business commonly known as cotto? exchanges, or stock exchs%ves, and sometimes ?alled 'bucket shops,' in towns and cities of twenty thousand inhabitante or more, five hundred.dollars; in all other towns and cities, two hundred and fifty dollar/; but this shall hot be held to legalize any contract which would otherwise be invalid." In ease No. 173 the action was brought by Mobile County for 'the recovery of the defendants' lieease tax for the year 1903, for engaging in the business of buying and selling futures on commission for other persons in the city of Mobile. The other ease (No. 174) was an action by the State. Plaintiffs re- covered in the Circuit Court and beth judgmentz were affirmed by the SupreVue Court. 146 Alabama, 163. The cases were submitted upon an agreed statement of the facts as follows: "During' the whole of the year 1903 defendants had office in the city of Mobile, in the county: of Mobile and State
�
