The national Republican., 1867-01-09
The Courts.


SUPREME CouRT OF THE UNITED STATES
TUESDAY, Jan 9, 1857.
On motion Of Mr.. Msrrick, John J. McKennop,
E,q., Of Illinois, was admitted m attorney and
counsellor Of this court. 80
No. "a. The Steamer Grey jacket and Cargo,
Timothy Maher, claimant appellant, W. The Uni-
ted States. The argument Of this cause was con-
tinued by Mr.. Eames, Of counsel for the cAptors
The further argument Of this cause was postponed.
No. IS. Ezra s. Stanley, Of al, plaintiff in error,
was commenced BY Mr. Perkins, Of counsel for plain.
The Mas,achuIstts liquor ea,ss-L the 6us,ns,s
Of retailing liquor in Massaehussits such a 6uJi.
ness may 81 hcen,ed BY the Federal Govern
npent The United States ". Nancy SpaiIl.-
The defendant indicted In the Circuit Court Of
tho United States for the district Of
In May last, for retailing spirituous liquors In that
State without United States license. The In
diotment was found under tho 7sd section Of the
l73d chapter Of the acts Of Congress of June 80,
1854, afixing penalty to the carrying on, with.
out q license, Of any business " for the carrying
on Of which license Is required by this act.
The case involves the same questions n oonsid.
cred In the New York lottery cases, recently re-
ported in this paper.
The Government proceeds upon the theory that
the business Of retailing liquor In MasSachusetts Is
one that requires license to be taken out BY the
retailer.
The State Of Massachusetts, and the defendant in,
btt tnht tucu IN assumption u DeEkluE tho ontlro
question. Tho question Is, as stated by them,
does the act rsquirs license for retailing liquor In
Massachusetts, to be taken by person In the sit.
uAtion Of the defendant? The inspection Of the
act will show that there Is no direct requirement
in terms for any person whatever to take out H.
esnse for any business In any State whore such busi
ness is prohibited by such State municipal law.
II goes further than that and provides that In
such places lioence, IF granted, will not exempt
the liosnsse from any Punishmsnt affixed to the
| carrying on the business, or authorize the COM
menoement or continuance thereof In such place.
What then can Congress mean except that lawful
business alone shall DO licensed, and that unlawful
business shall not be licensed at ALT The act Is
revenue act only. Even II Congress had the power
to do So II Is not pretended that they attempt to
impose the payment Of license as 4 punishment
to aid State to enforce Its own liquor law.
IT, then, the act Is q revenue act, and II BY
means Of 1t revenue Is eIaoted from the defendant,
the revenue Is collected from a criminal business
| which 10 punished by the State at the same time
II Is taxed BY the United states--A consequence
which Is scandalous. By statute In the State Of
Massachusetts, II Is unlawful and criminal, and
punishable BY hne and imprisonment In the house
Of correction, to sell spirituous liquors, except
under IN authority from the State which II Is
agreed the defendant did not have, Keeping q
building for the retailing Of liquors Is punishable
| by hne and imprisonment. Liquors kept for sale
contrary to law arc declared common nuisanoes, aud
| liable to seizure, destruction or oonhscation An
| OmCor ohlleu tuo oOnbthDlo, OF the commonwealth
and q number "of deputies are created by statute
and commanded to especially use their utmost en-.
dsavor to rspress and prevent other crimes by the
suppression Of all liquor-shops, gambling places
and houses Of ill.famo." Another law makes It
the duty Of the judges to soc that vioators Of the
liquor laws are promptly sentenced and forbids dis.
trict attorneys to nols pros any cases. .
Considering that those laws have been In force
| for many years, and that Congress gave them spe-
oial attention when framing q revenue bill for the
A. l-f- n
cense lawful business only, and that unlawful
business particularly II II were also criminal, was
| not to bo licensed at all.
There are classes of dealers who can lawfully re-
tail liquors In Massachusetts,. From any Of them
q license can undoubtedly be required BY the act
Congress cannot constitutionally lay tax exact
license on crimes, whether nIOia pyohi6ita or mola
an Sc, under the form Of a revenue act or in any
other way II State, by prohibitory legislation,
withdraw large class Of articles from taxation,
Congress must lose the revenue or protect the cit
zen. But Congress cannot dictate the domestic
Law Of any State Nor II constitutionally enact
law, the direct result Of which Is to compel cit
iIen to furnish evidence against himself
This court have decided In the case Of Mcguire
that United States license Is not protection To the
lioensee against the liquor law Of Massachusetts,.
(Sd Wallace, 378.)
The Attorney General relies In this case upon his
brief made and argued In the case Of tho United
States vs.. WIN. Croft, Indicted In New York for
| hoh'phymeh' VI bPeolAl TAX on poncy deAllng) the
questions involved being, as before stated, iden.
teal.
Henry stanbsry, Attorney General, and J. Hub.
ley Ashton, Assistant, for United States; George
Sennott for defendant.
NsW York Tap Ca1S-Ths Shares Of National
Banks TO Do Tarsd withOHt Regard TO thsir Capital
Stock Invested IN National SeeurtisS-TAs People
Of the State Qf NSW York, IN Tsl., DsRing QIIsr,
u.s. The CommiSJioHsyS Of 1hISJ aud ASISJSBsenIJ
ofthS City Of NsV Fork, aud EsvsH other Cass,.-
ThssO cases came from the Court Of Appeals Of the
State Of New York, whore the question presented
was whether the amount Of the capital stock Of q
National Bank invested in national securities, was
liable to State taxation, or whether that amount
could bo deducted before taxation. The Court Of
Appeals held that NO deduction could bs made on
account Of the inVsstmsat Of the stock Of the baa