Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-02-01
NEW PLAN OF TAXATION.

ed. Il is plan not new in principle by any means
but new q rl-ans of raising revenue. Ii is ia,
merchandle brought into this State for sale AM
consumption. Ii has often been resorted to, rathc
to exclude, than TO tax merchnntze, not only in THE
but other States Of the South. Georgia, if we mis-
take not, long since carried it to great extent
AZ 10 exclude ali pcdars from other States; and Eirgi
mia has for many years cgislatcd upon the same Prin
clple. The Caronas have done the same; and W.
doubt Rot large majority Of the States have adopted
measures for the like purpose.
But the new Till is empha;cnlly n revenue mea
sure; and Of the most imperative necessity. Yet
its consequences aud incidental effects will be of moro
value 10 Virginia, than the much needed revenue
which will be derived from it, if passed and farly
carried out.
The bill contains some eighteen or,twcnty sections
drawn out with care, but too long for insertion here
We insert enough to give the leading principles up
on which it is based.
lst. tproposes tax on licenses, or a tax on the
naked privilege to do business ms n merchant, auc
tion-ef, or firm of either. This tax is to be equa
and Uniform on all citizens; and i~cg lo"r dollars
year is proposed, and is paid in advance.
IL 1t proposes to tax capital rather the busnes:
OF merchants and auctoneers be- ascertainrd NJ the
end Of every six months, by the amount OF sales
made within that time. Aud one.tourM 0t one pr
csaHm the sales of Il merchant, and oactaLf Of 0n
per centnm the sales of auctonecr, are III,
taxes proposed Oh these branches OF business.
3D. 1t is proposed to levy u tax Oh certain psrsonn
chat'cis, cornprchculed under the name of goods
lint,
Virginia from any other State district or territory Of the
United States At,he end ofevery six months eGch mer
chant and auctoneer is required 10 report the amount
in actual cost OF all such chatsis as ne shall purchas,
and bring into the State for sale, consumption
and the tax shall be assessed thereon, at the rate
frc per ccniHm and, i'll like manner, all suct
personal chaltcs brought or sent into the State
to be sold on Commission, or in trust, shall b.
taxed when sold at the end Of each SIX months, at th
same rate OF five per cenum.
18th. 1t is provided that no such personal chattels
the growth or production Of any foreign country
which shall be directly nnd legally imported into Vr
ginin md the duties lf dutiabe) paid at a Custom
House here or at the Treasury Of the United States
shall BE- taxed; goods brought into the State
BY person moving i'll TO reside, for his own use: no
OH live stock OF any kind nor various agriculture
productions, meats. fishes, oils, dye-stufs, &c.
jth. And nil goods so taxed anu afterwards sold t
merchant, to be carried oat Of Virginia for sale
may be accounted for BY said merchant, and he mn
he allowed, IN his next tax bill, credit OF tou7tifth
Of the amount of the chai't tar, which he had PAID
or was liabic TO pay thereon.
9Th. Every taxable iuhabtant of the State is re
quircd also, to give i'll to the commissioner, when be
assessed true account of all such chattes he ma
bring into the State, and pay the same tax rs if h
were merchant.
Without entering into the merits Of these prov
sions at this time, we reproduce an article from h
Enquirer Of December 81, 1870, rs follows, and con
mend it to the careful attention of the reader:
SUPREME COURT on TAXING IMPORTS.
JUDGE MARSHALL'S OPINION &c.
We have before stated, very distinctly, that III
calisc in the Federal Constitution which prohibit
the States from levyng nRp1sts, ar dUtIcS ,mpoy!
andcrp0rt< was limited To the pr'rhge NJ 'mportIn
ONLY, aud that it did not follow the goods into tl
hands of the consumer the mCrchaRi who ven,Is
him. The whole doctrine is iHllv and clearly S,
forth in the opinion n Chief Justice Ruln of Mort
| Carolina rs decided by Iiic Supreme Court Of th
United States, with Chief Justice Marshall NJ il
head that cannot refrain from asking the partiC
well rs every reader of this paper, 10 it. 1t will b
seen that the right of taxation to the Stat,
Immediately after the importer sells his packages, o
opens them for usc or for sale among other goods, e
| rs to become mixed III common with the property
the State. The opinion of Chief Justice Marsha
cuts ui by the roots all room for doubt cnv L
the constitutional power OF the Legislature to carr
out this great remedy against nsOencc and aggre-
sion. Ii was given in the case Of Wynne VS.. Wright
! Dew. md Bat. vol. page -:
But in this Court another question has been argued
Which is of more Importance rs 1t involves inuur
| into the power of the Legislature To impose the tn,
either on merchants or pedlars. The words of III
second section that every person who shall ped
! die in any county, goods moi ot the growth or manu-
facture of this State, any wooden clock the ma
chinery or materials thereof, which shall not be O
the manufacture OF this State j'ir'iry which mn
chinery or clock shall be manufactured of materials
not of the growth, produce ur manufacture OF t!Il
! State, shall pay tax Of twenty dollars" The cas-
states that the articles retnIlcd BY the plaintiff wer
! of irwcrv, not manufactured in this State, but i'm
ported into it. Upon this the question has bee
| made whether n tax on articles imported into thi
State, or on the dealing in them, or law requiring
the purchase of n license to deal in them, be not re
purnnnt to the provisions OF the Constitution Of tn
United States, that "no State shall lay any imposts
or duties IN imports exports except what Shall b
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection
laws" and that Congress shall have power to rcgu
late commerce with foreign nations nnd among th
| several STATES, ana WIFI lIlt lilllhH ulDcS.
Upon this question: the court is not under the ne
cessty of presenting any original views Of their own
| # seems t0 be fully decided by the opinions of tn
Supreme Court of the United STATES, in MCnh0c
v. The .Si0tc of .NHryiaMd. j. Wheat. BIG, ant
| Br0ru V. Ihc Sta,c cf Naryhlpd, II Wheat. 49,
In the latter case, it held, that an act requiring
the importer of goods from foreign nation, to pay
tux for license sci! them b. the bnle or package
was void. But it admitted by Chief justice
Marshall, through whom the voice OF the malorit,
1 IL, 6
necessarily be understood in limited sense; and tha
although il not easy to say precisely how far tn
| restriction cncroached on the general power of
state. 10 tax persons or property within her Jurisc
ton, vet, that the restriction, upon fair construction
! ceased. whenever the goods imported, became miXet
WITH or incorporated into, the general mass Of pro
perty of the State. a tax on the sale IN bulk by h
importer, denies the free privilege Of making sucl
Incorporation; but wien once made, the restriction
ceases, and the unshackled power of taxation com
menres. As examples os such Incorporation as viii
make the imported articles subjects Of State taxation
the following instances are stated by the Chief Jus
ticc as being ulcnable. If the importer sell In,
goods and thereby the privilege purchased by TIT
import duty il he break up his packages, and ira
vel with the goods, pedar; or, if he keep par
ticuar article, Ms piece of plate or jewery, for hi
own use; or ii he sell in peculiar manner which
n tax is to he imposed. as by auction; in each o
these cases, the right OF State 10 tax, is deemed
deniablc; because II is necessary power, md 10 b.
the prohibitions Of the Constitution applies. Tha
principle is, that the right O! importation is acquired
from the United States exclusively, and consists mo
barely in the right to bring the goods into the coun
try. but, also to mix them, when here with the
property by sale at Wholesale. But, when lhu'
mixed, the right Of The importer does not pass TO his
assignee. nor does the former exemption from taxa
ton on first sale adhere to the goods upon resale
Nay although the importer continue to he the owner
the goods becOmc anal ,amated with the other goods
of the State, by either being Withdrawn from me
market a. subjects of commerce. and diverted to bis
private use or by being offered for sale III small par
GELS, or in q peculiar manner, az by auction, by
hawking or otherwise by retail.
"rhcse inf.rences are made from the language o
the Chief Justice, and if there could be any doubt o
their accordance with his meaning. that doubt is re-
moved bv the remarks OF Mr.. Justice Thompson
who dissen.ed. lie states it as AL admission OF the
minority of the Court that ta1 on retail 9eaes in
stitutiop The point ofd,if-rence between them was
solely MS to the period when the right of the State
tax accrued or to the condition and state in which