The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-07-21

hon, S,soourayss by taxation. The two lines OF
es' aa,on proceed 10 the same d'recs 1a. ama.i
10 tbs same result IL would be juaicla apoma'y,
singular indehDa5ic, we snou,u LOU q
ssc.aon OF the laws Of the state 10 90 .oi
t,cns reoure an Affirmative to the rst general
Observation-Disclosures the several defendants charged Win
carrying on business prohibited ey state Aws, w'hot
the cens Sea required by Of Congress, be
vicled and condemned 10 pay the penalties imposed oy
these acts The rcmanlne question Is whehe. We ue
special tax imposed by the Internal Revenue mw, but
which Is prohhiIed by the laws OF New YorS, can be
for not having paid that xxf What has been already
sufficiently Indicates our judgment upon this qnes-
Ion Congress, in framag the OF 1895, has care
fully guarded against any misconsructon Of the legs a
tive intention by substituting throughout tho term
especial Tx" for tho word '.hcouse." This judicions
legislation has renewed all future possibility OF The
error which has been common among persons engaged
particular branches OF business tina; they derived
from the licenses they obtained undor the rnai reve-
nue. laws an authority for carryng the ens.d bnsI
independently Of State regulation and control And
throws moreover upon the previous All Inc
light OF . deciafaory enactment. IL fully confirms,
confirmation needed the view we have already az
pressed that the requirement OF payment Tor licenses
under former laws form OF special lax iion
The act OF 1855 contains The same provision In respect
to the effect OF special taxes which tho Original
act Of 1894 contained respect 10 licenses IL provides
expressly dat the payment OF imposed by 1t
ehali not exempt any person carrying CD trade or on-
ness from any penalty or punishment PROVIDED Dy Sto
carrying such trade business or au horne
the commencement continuance Of any soch trade or
business contrary state laws, or prevent the posi-
STATE authority. H. was insst'd ny counse.
that whatever nigh, be tho power, 1t could
not have been The intention Of Congress TO
tax any business prohibited by State laws, and the
argument from pubic policy was much relied upon IN
support of this view We think unnecessary 10 re.
peat the answer already made TO this argument when
urged against the requirements OF licenses 1t Is, II
possible less oogent against the direct imposition oil
prohibited than against the indirect I'M
position It may hoao ycr, be properly said tuat the
law Of 1896 enacted after the arguments OF The last
term and that Congress imposed these spec with
Tho listin nd
,hus taxed prohibited by state legislation.
This ia conclusive 10 the nteuon The hypothesis
asked 10 adopt would nuiiy some OF the paines
provisions OF the act. and IS inadnissloe inc qaes
ton must be answered aihrmatvely. Upon the whole
we conclude.
/. That licenses under the act Of 1894 and the
smendaory conveyed TO the iicensse authority
TO carry on the licensed business within state
2. That the requirement. OF payment FOR such license
is only mode Of imposing axes on the hcansed bosi-
ness and that the Prohibition under penalties against
carrying The business without iiceUso only mode
Of enforcing the payment Of such taxes
That Inc provisions of the acts OF Congress requir
ing such and imposing penalties for not taxing
out and paying Tor them, not contrary 10 the const
n.ioD or to public policy.
That the SONS in the act Of 1880 for The i'm
posing OF special taxes IN lieu OF requiring payment for
licenses removes whatever ambiguity existed 10 the
previous and IN harmony with the constitution
and public policy.
s. That the recognition by the acts of Congress of the
power and right OF the states TO tax control regoats
any business ed within It's limits Is eDtireiy
sisten with intention the part OF Congress 10 tax
such business Tor national purposes
1t foows:Tbs, in the from the Northern dis
trio, Of New York the question certified must be
swered in the affirmative. That in the Ave from
the district Of Now Jersey the several judgments must
be reversed and The several rcmanded TO the
Circuit C0ure for new trial. In conformity with this
opinion. That in tho from the district OF Massa
chusetts the two questions certified must be ans wered
in the affirmative; ana that in each OF the two
from the Southern district OF New York the following
must be returned to the Circuit Court, namely
That the law imposing tho special tax in the indictment
mentioned and for the payment Of which said in
dctment was preferred and found Is valid and not IN
constitutional All which IL order cd accordingly.