The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1868-08-20
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.

No. e5-Deeember Term, 1857.
WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Plaintiff in Error
THE STATE OF NEVADA.
| In error to the Supreme Court of tn
State of Nevada.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion o
the Court.
The question for the first time presented
20 the court BY this record is enc of import
ance. The proposition 10 be considered i:
! the right Of State to levy a tax upon per
sons residing in the State who may wish tC
get utof it, and upon persons not residing
in it who may have occasion to pass through
it.
1t is to be regretted that such a question
should be submitted to our consideration,
with neither brief nor argument on the part
of plaintiff in error. But our regret is d.
mini>hed BY the reflection, that the princi-
have been the subject of much consideration
in cases heretofore decided by this court.
The plaintiff in error, who was the agent
Of stage company engaged in carrying pas
sengers through the State of Nevada, was
arrested for refusing to report the number of
passengers that had been carried by the
coaches of his company. and for refusing to
pay the tax of one dollar imposed on each
passenger by the law of that State. He
pleaded in good form that the law of the
State under which he was prosecuted was
void, because it was in conflict with the Con-
stitution of the United States and his plea
being overruled, the case came into the Su-
preme Court of the State, where it was deci-
ded against the claim thus set up under the
Federal Constitution.
The provisions of the statute charged to
be in violation of the Constitution, are TO be
found in sections ninety and ninety-,He of
the revenue act of 1865, page 27l, of the
Statutes Of Nevada for that year. Section
ninety enacts, that there shall be levied
and collected a capitation tax Of one dollar
up"n every person leaving the State BY any
railroad, stage coach, or other vehicle en-
gagged or employed in the business Of trans
poi ting passengers for hire :" and that the
prop ietors, owners, and corporations so en-
gagged shall pay said tax of one dollar for
each and every person so conveyed Dr trans
ported from the State. Section ninety-one,
for the purpose of collecting the tax, re-
qures from persons engaged in such bust
ness, or their agents, report every month,
under oath, Of the number of passensers SO
transported, ard the payment of the tax 10
the sheriff or other proper officer.
1t is claimed BY counsel for the State that
the tax thus levied is not tax upon the
passenger. but upon the business of the car
rier who transports him.
1.-THE &C; were much more skillfully drawn
to sustain this hypothesis than 1t is, we
should be very reluctant to admit that anv |
form OF words, which had the effect to com
pei every person. travelling through the coun
Try BY the common and usua modes Of pub |
lie conveyance to pay specific sum to the |
State, was not a tax upon the right thus |
The statute before US Is not,
however, embarrassed By any nice difficulties |
If this character. The language which we
lave Just quoted is, that there shall be lev
led and collected a capitation tax upon every
person leaving the State by any railroad or
tage coach; ami the remaining provisions
If the act which refer to this tax. only pro-
-ide mode of collecting it. The officers
nd agents of the railroad companies, and
ne proprietors Of the stage coaches, are
made responsible for this, and 50 become
he collectors of the tax.
We shall have occasion to refer hereafter
omewhat in detail, to the opinions of the
Judges OF this court in the Passenger Cases,
Howard, i'll which there were wide differ
noes on several points involved in the case
efore US. In the case from New York then
nder consideration, the statute provided
nat the health commissioner should be en- {
tied to demand and receive from the master
f every vessel that should arrive in the
ort of New York, from foreign port, one
ollar and fifty cents for every cabin passen- '
er, and one dollar for each steerage pass {
niger, and from each coasting vessel, twenty
We cents for every person on board. That I
.atute does not use language SO strong as {
lie Nevada statute, indicative of a personal I
* on passengers, but merely taxes the !
laster of the vessel according to the num- I
er of his passengers but the court held it c
be a tax upon the passenger, and that the /
aster was the agent of the state for its col L
ction. Chief Justice fancy, while he diff r
ed from majority Of the court, and held t
re law to be valid, said of the tax i
We'd by the analogous statute of Il
that its payment is the con- t
ton upon which the state permits the t
len passenger to come on shore and min e
e with its citizens, and to reside among z
EN-. 1t is demanded of the captain, and II
It from every separate passenger, for con- Il
nience of collection. But the burden evil G
ntly falls upon the passenger, and he, in II
ct, pays it, either in the enhanced price of Il
S passage or directly to the captain before p
is allowed to embark for the voyage. The II
ture of the transaction, and the ordinary VI
urse of business, show that this must a
So" II
Having determined that the statute of CO
,vada imposes tax upon the passenger el
the privilege of leaving the state, or pass II
, through it by the ordinary mode of pas al
niger travel, we proceed to inquire if it is zt
that reason in conflict with the Constitu- p'
n of the United States. |p'
In the argument of the counsel for the de- ri
ldant in error, and in the opinion of the pr
nreme Court of Nevada which is found in ia