The northern galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1844-1848, 1846-02-10
For the Galaxy.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
LICENSE LAW.

Mr.. EDITOR There seems 10 be some
misapprehension with regard TO what was de-
cided in the case Of Brown rs. Maryland, in
the Supreme Court Of the United States; and
as this case is supposed to have an imPor-
tapi bearing upon the license question now
Dending before that august tribunal. shcrt
statement Of the case and the points decided,
NAV not prove uninrerestins 10 yOur readers.
The Legislature of Maryland, in 1921,
passed au act, that all importers Of foreign
goods OF a certain description and all persons
selling the same should not be authorized TO
sell such goods without taking out license
for that purpose and paying therefor fifty dol
lars: and in case any person should sell with
out license he should forfeit and pay penal
~ OF one hundred dollars.
The Browns sold one package OF dry goods
Of the prohibited description, without having
license. They were accordingly Indicted
at the Baltimore city count, and judgment
renle.cd against hem for the penalty. The
case went to the Court of Appeals, where the
juds ment of the City Court was affirmed :
thence writ Of error was brought 10 the
Supreme Court of the United States. and
here the case was fina lily heard aud determin-
cd.
The distinguished William Writ, tthen
Attorney GENERALLY for the plaintiffs in Error.
insisted that the Browns should go thence,
without day. because the law OF MARYLAND
was unconstitutional, and therefore void,
LIST Because it is repugnant to that provis
ion Of the Constitution which declares thai
no State shall without the consent Of Con
gress, lay any imposts or duties on imports OIL
exports" and
ID. Because it is repugnant to that prOvs-
ION Of the Constitution which declares thai
Congress shall have power 40 regulate
commerce, with foreign nations, and among
the several States aud with the Indian tribes
With regard to the first objection, iht
Court admitted the subject to be full Of diff
culries. The States had the power undonht
eddy to tax property and persons within then
limits; but this power must be exercised Sc
as not to conflict with the conceded powers
of Congress. The only point decided was
simply, that the importer himself could not be
faxed; whether those to ,rhOm he sold could
he taxed was left an open quesilen; and the
poni, ut which the power OF Congress ovel
The thing imported ceased, and the power o
The States to tax il commenced, was purpose
~ and avowedy left undecided and unadJu
,.icated by the Court. In delivering the o.
pinon, of the Court, the judge intimates tina
when the thing imported has become incor
porated and mixed up with the other proper
" Of the country, it has perhaps lost its dis
tinctive character as an import and his he
come subject to the taxing pow er OF The State
This intimation, however, Is the mere dlc'unl
Of the Judge, upon matter not before the
Court. and therefore cannot be considered as
of binding authority.
But no where is il minated. much less
given as the Judgment" ofIhe Court, that
the pswer of the States eau be exercised up
on such property. at any period. so as to re-
strict or prohibit its sale but upon the con-
trary, in delivering the opinion. upon The sec
ond point in the case, Chief Justice MAR
SHALL expressly decides, that the States have
no such power. The reasoning of The
Court, condensed in the marginal note, is as
follows:
"The power to regulate commerce, giver
to Congress, By the Constitution, is co-exten
sive with the subject on which it acts: anC
cannot be stopped at the external boundary
Of State, bur must enter lis interior. IL The
power reaches the interior of a State. and
NAV be there exercised, it must be capable OF
authorizing the sale of those articles it intro
duces. Commerce is intercourse; one o.
its most ordinary ingredients is traffic. II Is
uncomfortable, that the power TO authorize
this traffic, when given in the most conPre-
hensivs terms. with the intent that is efficacy
shall be complete. should cease at the Poin'
,Ohen its continuance is indispensable TO its raj
ue."
And so, upon both grounds, the Court held
the law of Maryland 10 he unconstitutional.
The decision upon this delicate aud i'm
portant question is characterized by the usu
al depth and clearness of the source from
whence it emanates; it is is enough OF eulo
GUM. to say, that it was pronounced by JOIN
| MARSHALL.
The case is reported in IL, Wheat. 4l9.
CIVlS.