Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1850-12-24

war-provding for convention " ns safes 10 meet
lending mn invitation her sister Southein
her for The nurnoee OF redressing their common s
together with The undivided sentiments OF heI p ali
~ rnhc mon on the issue now before inc county,! c
ana pubic ho skinp an opportunity of retiring graceful
10 from her position The inaugural OF ncl new
ois,rate Is another indication OF TINS reulhe W rom ms
Tbn che u re,Ye and retire gracefully, 1922 Io 49,
Ion when the proper time arrives We nave no uoo
from her pre.sn, proud position OF resistance ~
aggressions-sEyEh.
SUPREME COURT on TAXING IMPORTS
JUDGE MARsHALL's OPINION, DC.
We have before stated, very distinctly, 'hd' '.o ~
the Federal Constitution which pToh'oi's inc
,., ;nos,, or duties on imports and exports, was ~
a., ar;r,.c. If importing only and that 1t did not
1 The .oods into the hands Of the consumer or the 'e'
-, ,ho vends 10 him. The whole doctrine is 80 luly
nd clearly set forth in the opinion of Chief Justice rum"
- No,b Carolina as decided by the Supreme Court OF Inc
Ii,d States with Chief Justice Marshall at It's head mat
ma connot refrain from asking the particular aeh"oh
avery member of the Legislature, as well as every feaoe
,hs naner 10 IT, II will he that the risn oil taxation
10 the State Immediately after the importer ses MS
..,lore or opens them for USE for sale among othe
goods 80 as become mixed In common win he properly
~ N. State The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall cuts
nm Nv the roofs oil for doubt or cav as 10 the consul
onal mower of the legislature to carry out this grea'
msdv npaInst nsolence and aggression 1t was given IN
Tho c,se Of Wynne Wright Dev and Bat VOL page III
R, &, this court another question has been argued winch
n nnre importance it involves an inquiry INTO he
mower of The Legislature to impose the ta1 ELMER m ,h
S,a ~ nedars The words of The second section are INA
very neson who shall pcdde in any county, gooos m Va
The 9rowt. or manufacture OF this STATE or any m
,l ~ Tho machinery materials thereof whicn siah not
s M. manufacture of this State, or je,oery ~hicn ma
chnery or clock shall be manufactured OF no u
the growth be case states that the articles
reiaed BY the plaintiff Of ewery not 10
This State but imported into H. Upon inns lhe quesoh ae
hasn made whether a articles imported INTO ms
dealin i'm
chase of license deal in hem DC not repusnanL 70 ne
PROVISIONS of the Constitution OF the United STATES na no
except what shall absolutely necessary for executing us
nsnecon laws" and that "Congress shall have power &c
regulate commerce with foreign nations ana among '
vsral States and with the Indian tribes
Inon This question: is under the necessity
of nresentnq any original views Of their own II seems 10
IniIed States In MCulOck The State Of Maryland
Wheat 3l6 and Brorn Y. The State q Inaryiana ~
Wheat 4l9 In the latter case il was held that an ac re-
ar for license 10 sell them by the bale or package, was
void But admitted by Chief Justice Marshall through
whom the voice of the majority was gwen na ne "oa "
tho Constitution necessarily be understood In unit
ed and that although not to say precisely
how far the restriction encroached the general power Of
State persons or properly wilnn nel uflsu.c y'
that the restriction upon fair construction ceased When
ever the goods imported became mixed WITH or ncorpoa'
ted into The general Of property OF the State tax
on the sale in bulk by the importer denies Inc iee ps'ese
Of making such interpretations but when once made the res
friction ceases and the unshackled power OF taxation COM
menres As examples of such Incorporation as VIII make
the imported articles subjects OF Suite taxauon lhe
folowtnp instances are stated by the Chief JUS
rice as being undeniable. II the importer sen lhe
goods and thereby uses the privilege purchased ny
rha import duty; If he break up his packages ana ira
vel with the goods us pedla or If he keep particular
article as piece Of plate ]ewey Tor his own use; or
he sell in peculiar manner on wnicn TAX IS as
nv ancton In each OF these cases. the right OF State 10
lax deemed undenabe because II is necessary power
and 10 be interfsed with far only as the principle on
which the prohibitions OF the Constitution appnes. dna'
thar Of
the United States exclusively and consists not barely IN the
right 10 bring the goods into the country but also 10 mix
hem when here with the OF property by sale al
wholesale But when thus Mixed the righo the importer
does pass his assignee nor does the FORMER exemption
from taxation on FIRST sale adhere 10 the goods upon re.
SALE Nay although the importer continue 10 be the owner
ha goods become amagamaed with the other goods of the
State by either being Withdrawn from the MARKET as SUD-
ecs Of commerce. and diverted his private USE or oy be-
ING offered sale in small parcels or In peculiar Manner
as by auction, by hawking, or otherwise by retail
These inisrences made from The language Oh me Chie
Justice and there could be any douot o eif ACCORDANCE
vim his meaning DOUBT is removed BY the remarks
Mr. Justice Thompson who cissensd lie states II as an
admission OF the majority OF the Court that Tax on reai
dsales in imported merchandise 10 rot IN violation OF t
Constitution The roat of difference between hem was
solely as to period when the RICH, OF the STATE 10 Tax
crued or as 10 The concn and siue 10 which the goods
mus be 10 b. come subjects OF TAXATION All agreed IN
two POINTS, that the State could NOT impose DUTY on inc
ACT o importation; and that cnud Do where me gooas
became mixed up with the other goods the country oy inc
packages being broken up, and Sa-s y RETAIL IN any ooe
at,emped The majority of the Court held, mat Inc pThl'
bition went beyond the introduction OF goods into
mass 81 The genssl property The State, BY sale by the
importer by wholesale Judge Thompson on The contrary
thought that it followed from the right TO tax retail dealers
that there right those BY wnoesae as ne
saw no intermediate between the two extreme aerna-
ives that the prohibition was, the one hand, only
against taxing the Of importation and did not attach 10
the article the disposition of III on the other hand
that II against the right tax the article st oil or any
and all future dispositions of IT. which last hypothesis he
as we'll the other members of the Court rejected as alto
getber untenable. .
The result of the reasoning is tho that the term m-
pore thu Constitution not only the TACT OF Inn
porstionn but the PARTICLES imported that In the latter
sense the exemption from taxation continues only until Inc
fret wholesale disposition OF them After such disposition
or after the packages broken and the goods appop
to private use; offered for sale RETAIL or 10 any pc
cuIa manner" they be imports, ARTICLES lmpor-
ted" within the meaning of the Constitution They then
become subjects Of State taxation in all It's modhca-
tions either the value the sae as other property
| may be taxed.
Ii would seem to follow, that tax may consutlonay
be imposed such goods. thus appropriated 10 private use
or offered for sale in peculiar manner although they be
taxed by the Of goods imported not OF the Produc-
OF the State For State may certainly exercise her
discretion in selecting the objects OF taxation amongst
those which subject taxation; and the name given In the
statute is only the mode of designation or description
Whenever the power Of the State to tax arises because
the thing taxed article imported as understood In
the CONSTITUTIONS and if the State tax II by that name that
cunnot bring il again. and by force thereof within the Con-
stutinn and make be such ian article Imported as Is
not subject &c !asation.
--<ees-----