[732] He also invoked New York Central and H.R.R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906), where although 12 to 64 per cent of the rolling stock of the railroad was outside of New York throughout the tax year, New York was nevertheless allowed to tax it all because no part was in any other State throughout the year. The case is atypical, a constitutional sport; cf. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905).
[733] 322 U.S. at 301-302.
[734] "The apportionment theory is a mongrel one, a cross between desire not to interfere with State taxation and desire at the same time not utterly to crush out interstate commerce. It is a practical, but rather illogical, device to prevent duplication of tax burdens on vehicles in transit. It is established in our decisions and has been found more or less workable with more or less arbitrary formulae of apportionment. Nothing either in theory or in practice commends it for transfer to air commerce."—Ibid. 306.
[735] Ibid. 308.
[736] Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891).
[737] 322 U.S. 309.
[738] 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[739] Ibid. 622.
[740] Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
[741] Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).