The national Republican., 1867-01-29
MORNING.

p'atntns In error. Tue complaint averred that be-
tween the arst Monday In March and the frat
Monday in August, 1852, the plaintids In error
were assessed Ia pursuanes Of the territorial iass
for goods 10 store oooupied BY them In Carson city
Nevada, At t7ooooi twenty tons Of hay, $500;
goods In another store, 90 sooi lumber and timber
5000 one hundred tons Of hay, 1000; on which
levied for the fiscal year 1862 Federal tar Of
ssl.soi territorial tsI Of ss276o, and county
tar Of 81 27s So
The plaintiffs In error answered, alleging that
they had paid all taxes for that year and supple:
mental answer denied that the asssssmeut alleged
In the complaint had ever been made. An amended
complaint set up "subsequent Assessmsnt," T" made
In accordance with the provisions Of Law, between
the 6rst Monday In August and the last Saturday
In October To this, reply was made that the hay
was part Of q growing crop produosd from the ranch
Of the PLAINTIFF in error In Douglas county, and
was not harvested or removed into 0rmsby county
until after the FIRST Monday In August Of that year
and amor they had been assessed for all their prop
srty including this rancho In Douglas county, that
Of the extra amount Of goods. about 80, 900 In
value had been includsd IN the spessmsnt In Doug
las county; that the remainder was bought from
the proessds Of their business In the counties Of
Douglas and ormsby, all Of which had been assessed
on the taxes paid for the year long before the as
ssssment alleged 10 the complaint that the timber
and lumber were not owned BY them until after
they were assessed and their taxes paid for the
year and that they were had In the regular course
Of their business for the year. ..-..
notice TO tho defendants ss alleged, the court
struck out all the answer except the allegation
specting the $8, 900; and upon the hearing II was
| found that the defendants had been assessed for
paid taxes on goods Of the value Of $780, part Of
the property mentioned, and were entitled to .
credit for the amount on their taxes In 0rmsby
county, and Judgment was given for 81, 522, being
the tsx on the rest Of the property Of the assessed
value Of $40, 100, and costs, such judgment TO be
| collected In gold and silver coin Of the United
| glataa vEaa thar taksn N ha 9u.
| preme Court Of the Territory, where tho judgment
was affirmed, and the cause thence came here, the
plainti In error oontending that the striking out
Of the principal part Of the answsr purts, the
answer containing q valid defence, was errors.
1t was equivalent to Judgment on demurrer TO q
valid answer, In favor OF the plaintiffs.
On tho merits II Is claimed that under the act
relied upon the county commissioners were only
authorised to levy q tax Of so cents on every
800 value Of property, whereas the tar for which
500. The levy was therefore void nor was
there any levy BY law nor authority given BY law,
to the county commissioners to make the levy Of Q
territorial tar. The act In question (of Nov. 20,
1861, omitted to make any provision on the sub
ject The levy Of the territorial tax therefore
| also void.
These errors are apparent on the face Of the
pleadings In the PLAINTIFF statement Of their
CASE and upon an inspection Of the record the
court will observe and correct them. II Is no OBJ.
lection that these defences not specially made
In the District Court. But the judgment Of the
District Court was erroneous In being rendered for
gold and silver coin Of the United States. The OBJ
lection to pay the taI If subject Of suit, 1t Is
stated In this case, is debt and falls within the
act Of Congress Of Feb. 25 1852, making the Treas
ury notes Issued In pursuance Of Il legal tender
In payment Of debts The judgment was In direct
conflict with the act, as in requiring the payment
Of coin II denied the right Of payment In iegaliIsd
w s, Coz and Nathaniel Wilson for plaintiff, In
error; defendant not appearing.
Decision in the Liquor and Lottery Cases-T -THe
Right ofths State TO Prohibit not IieOnJiItst pith
The IHtention Of Comgre,s totdr-Ths United State,
v,. Yossar, and Ons other case from NsV York
The United States vs. Green. and four other oasei
from Nsv Jasey-TAs United States w. !Sirain
from MaJsaehnsstts.-Thes cases have been re-
ported in this paper, and will be remembered By
Its readers.
In ono Of the cases from New York II was claimed
that license from the Federal Government, under
the act Of 1854, to engage In the selling Of LOTTERY
tickets, authorized such traffic, notwithstanding
the statute Of the State rendered It unlawful.
The Now Jersey cases were similar, and were ar.
gued at the last term Of the court but not decided
In the second Of the Now York cases It was con.
tended that the special tax, imposed by the act o
1865, on the business Of lottery dealing, could moi
be collected BY the Government, because the Law
Of the State had prohibited such traffic 1t was ar
gued that the act Unconstitutional, and against
public policy such was also the position taken II
the present test liquor case from Massachusetts.
The court now hold as follows: l. Tho license
under the act Of 1854 and the amendatory acts,
confer upon the licensee no authority to carry on
the licensed business within the States. 2. Th'
requirement Of payment for licenses is simply
, mode Of imposing taxes on tho business, and the
prohibition under penalties against carrying the
business without license Is only means or mod,
Of enforcing the payment Of such taxes. 8. The
provisions Of the act Of Congress requiring sucl
license, and imposing penalties for not taking ou
and paying for them, are not contrary to the Con
stitution or public policy. 4. The provisions IL
the act Of 1866, for the imposing Of special taxes II
4 lieu Of payment for licenses, removed whateve
ambiguity existed In the previous laws. and are Il
harmony with the Constitution and public policy
Z 8. Tho recognition by the acts Of Congress Of tn
. power and right Of the State to tax, control o
regulate any business carried within Its limit
Is entirely In harmony and consistent with an In
teniOn the part Of Congress to tax such busines
for national purposes.
It follows therefore, that the prohibition Of an
4 business by the State does not conflict with th,
right Of the Government to tax such business whor
being carried on; does tho license under the ao
Of 1854 give the licensee authority to violate th
laws of a State by engaging therein In businss
| rendered unlawful by statute.
. Thara Ia m 1iaseniinU oninfon In thesa