The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-19

The money raised by the act proposed, woulc
all go at once into the treasury of North Caro-
lima, to be expended for her own benefit. Bu
now paying to the Federal Government, is ex,
pended mainly for the benefit of the North, the
hostile section. This, perhaps, is one of the
means why this policy is approved by this press
true to the interests of that section.
Besides the policy proposed may be less ac-
ceptible to the IA~Aigencer, because the pro-
lection in this case would be given to the me
chanics and laborers of North Carolina, and
not to the AboIitionists at Lowell and other
points, who are engaged in making constant
war upon the South. The MteAigencer well
knows that MASSACHUSETTS, the State which sends
most of her productions to the South, not only
has through her Legislature and Congressman
denied the Northern stakeholder any share in
the common territory; that she has twice through
her Legislature unanimously resolved that the
slave representation ought to be abolished, and
that she now has, and has had, for several wears
on her statute book, laws forbidding, upon pain
of fine and Imprisonment, her citizens from
obeying the constitutional njunctions in rela-
ton to fugitves. And yet the conductors of
that journal saw nothing to coAdemn in these
things and do not even allow their readers to
know that such things are
Our purpose, however, now is not to argue
these points, but to present that portion Of the
amman nf Chiaf In uGi, ,yhi,h .ln. n,
to the point in controversy.
1t was given in the case of Wvnne rs.
Wright, Dew. d Bat vol. page 10,
But in this court another question has / cen ar
gued, which is of more importance, as il involves
an inquiry into the power OF the Legislature To i'm
pose the tax, either on merchants or pedlars.
The words Of the second section are " that every
person who shall peddle in any county, goods not
of the growth manufacture Of this State, or any
wooden clock, or the machinery or materials
thereof which shall not be of the manu- acture of
this State, or jepelry, which machinery or clock
shall be manufactured Of materials, not Of the
growth, produce, or manufacture of this State.
shall pay a tax Of twenty dollars" The case
states that the articles retailed by the plaintiff,
were Of jeweIry, not manufactured in this State,
but imported into it. Upon this the question has
been made, whether n tax on articles imported
into this State. or on the dealing in them, or law
requiring the purchase of license to deal in them,
be not repugnant to the provisions of the Consti-
tuition of the United States, that " State shall
lay any imposs, or duties, on imports or exports,
| except what shall be absolutely necessary for exc
cutting its inspection laws, and that Congress
shall have power to regulate commerce with for
eign nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian tribes.
Upon this question, the court is not under the
necessity Of presenting any original views of their
own. 1t seems to be fully decided by the opin-
| ions Of the Supreme Court of the United States,
in NJ Coilock " Tile State Of MARYLAND, 4 Wheat.
BIG, and Bro,en v. The State Of .Narylnnd, ~
Wheat. 4ls. In the latter case, it was held, that
an act, requiring the importer Of goods from a for
eign nation, to pay tax for license to sell them
! by the bale or package, was void. But it ad
, mitted by Chief Justice Marshall, through whom,
the voice Of the ma jority given, that the
words Of the Constitution necessarily he I'M
derstood in Il limited sense; and that although it
was not easy TO say precisely how far tie restrc.
! ton encronched on the general power of Safe,
! to tax persons or property within her jurIsdIc-
ton yet that the restriction, uron fair construc-
| ton ceased, whenever the goods imported, be-
came mixed with, or incorporated into. the gene
raj mass Of property Of the State. A tax on the
sale in bulk by the importer, denies the free priv
| lege of making such interpretations; but wher
once made, the restriction ceases and the un
| shacked power of taxation comm ences. AS eX
amples of such incorporation, as will make The
|
| following instances are stated by the Chief JUS
| tce, as being undenable. If the mp ,rter sell the
| goods, and thereby uses the privilege purchased
by the import duty; or if he break up his pack.
ages, and travel with the goods, pedlar; or, #
he keep particular article, as piece Of plate OF
| jewery, for his own use; or if he sell in peculiar
manner, on which tax is imposed, as by auc
ton In each Of these cases, the right Of State
| to tax, is deemed undeniabe; because it is ne
cessary power, and to be nterfered with so far only
as the principle on which the prohibitions Of the
Constitution, applies. That principle is, that thu
| right of importation is acquired from the United
States exclusively, and consists not barely in thu
| right to bring the goods into the country, but also
| to mix them, when here, with the mass of proper
| ty " a sale at Wholesale But when thus mixed
! the ri h Of the importer does not pass to his as
| signee, nor does the former exemption from taxa
ton on first sale adhere to the goods upon re-
sale. Nay, although the importer continue to be
the owner, the goods become magamated with
the other goods of the State, by either being
withdrawn from the market, subjects Of com
merce, and diverted to his private use, or by be
| ing offered for sale in small parcels, or in recu
liar manner, as by auction, by hawking, or 9th
erwse by retail.
These differences are made from the language o
the Chief Justice, and if there could he any doub
of their accordance with his meaning, that doub
is removed by the remarks Of Mr.. Justice Thomp
son, who dissented He states it as an admission
OF the majority OF the Court, that tax on retail
dealers in imported merchandise is not in viola
ton Of the Constitution. The point Of dlfftrenc,
between them, was solely as to the period, wher
the right Of the State to tax accrued, or as TIT
condition and state in which the goods must be
to become the sub jecs of taxation. All agreed ir
two points, that the State could not impose n du
ty on the act of Importation; and that it could dc
so, where the goods became mixed up with tn,
other goods of the country by the packages bein.
broken up, and sales by retail, in any mode at
tempted. The majority of the Court held, tha
the prohibition went beyond a tax on the intro
ducton Of the goods into the country, and EN-
braced one their introduction into the mass O
the general property Of the State, by sale by tn
importer by wholesale Judge Thompson, on thu
contrary, thought that it followed from the RICH
to tax retail dealers, that there was the same RICH
to tax those by Wholesale; az he saw no interme
date be ween the two extreme alternatives tina
the prohibition was, on The one hand only agans
taxing the act of importation, and did not attacl
to the article, or to the disposition Of it, or, OF
the other hand that it against the right to IA,
the article at all, any and al! future disposition
Of it; which last hypothesis, he, well as Thu
other members Of The Court, rejected as alto
! gether untenable.