Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-08-01


ofthe state 90 Levy Taxes ON Pack
axc. In che Hands Of Importers.
Through tho courtesy Of the attorneys
Messrs. Humes, Poston' a Webb, having
charge Of the case Of Toof, Phillips a
Co. against John League, County Court
Clerk, we were yesterday placed in pos
session Of the fact that an alternative
mandamus and certiorari had been
granted the plaintiffs by Judge Pierce,
of the Law Court, but too late 10 accom-
pany the statement OF the fact with any
comments. Though thus far, MS we sup
pose, the case has only been heard ca
parfe, and Is yet to be considered and
decided, we are pleased to see that TINS
matter, Of so great Importance to our
merchants and to the interests OF the
city. is in a way to be decided. or the
result on q full hearing we see no suffi-
Gent reason to doubt. That imports
from other States, or from foreign coun-
tries, in the hands Of importers, are not
liable to taxation by the State, is indis-
putable, by prohibition of the Consiitu'
ton. And that when tax has once
been paid to the State, a subsequent tax
cannot be levied on the same goods,
should, il seems to us, be equally clear to
any legal mind.
Toof, Phillips 4 Co., are importers
selling to retail merchants and consum'
ers, so that all the questions as to the
right of collection of taxes and duplicate
taxes by the county court clerk are raised
in their case. Congress, by the Constr
tuition, has the exclusive power to regu-
late commerce among the several States,
and Icy tariffs on imported goods. Art.
7, Sec. 8 J. The States are expressly
prohibited from levying tax on i'm
ports, whether from foreign countries or
on goods passing from State to State,
which, under the direction of Congress,
is required to be uniform throughout
the country. 1t is only after the goods
have left the hands of the importer, and
become incorporated into, and identified
with the general property of the State,
that they become the legitimate subject
of taxation, in the hands of the citizens
of particular State. The truth of these
PROPOSITIONS is too well settled by the let
ter of the Constitution of the United
States, by the uniform decisions of the
Supreme Court, by all authoritative pre-
cedents, and by the acquiescence of the
state tribunals, during all the existence
and history of this country, to admit OF
any question at this day. We omit
special reference to the authorities, only
because we cannot make room without
too much extending an editorial article.
The only question in the case is as to
the right Of the Clerk to collect taxes
after the goods have been broken from
bulk, and having passed from the hands
of the importers, have become the prop
erty of other citizens of the State. And
this depends on the action of the Legis-
lature, and the construction which is to
be placed on its statutory enactments.
The general revenue act of 1868, which
prescribes the rates of taxation on prop
erty and privileges, and designates
among the privileges the business OF
merchants, makes as to them this pro-
vision, "The following shall be the rate
of taxation: On sales of merchandise
by merchants, half cent in the dollar
on its invoice cost, at the place where
purchased, unless the tar upon the same
has once befoss been paid to the State,
in phich ecent 40 additional tao shall
be paid" = Sec. 553 of the Code.
Again, in May, 1865, an act amending
the revenue laws was passed, but, as to
merchants, repeated the same identical
language and terms.
So far, then, no doubt exists. But
again in March last another act amend
ing the revenue laws was passed, which
declares the act of May, 1865, "be and
the same is hereby amended, SO that the
following rate taxation shall be levied
and collected" The act then proceeds
to declare an increased rate of taxation
on property and privileges, and, exing
the tax to merchants for licenses at one
per cent. on the dollar-invoice cost of
all goods atthe place where purchased
concludes by requiring semi-annual
statement of his purchases by every mer-
chant, to be made to the County Clerk,
etc.
We understand that because this
amendment (which really does nothing
more than double the taxi does not re-
peat the concluding clause of the acts of
1858 and 1865, to.wit: " unless the tax
upon the same has once before been paid
to the State, in which event no additional
tax shall be paid" that therefore Mr..
League construes the act Of 1868 as a
repeal of the clause last quoted, in pro-
hibition of an additional tax made by the
acts of 1853 and 1865. And hence
he requires the merchant to pay the
per cent on articles on which the tax
has, as we'll as has not, been previously
paid. And he also requires importers
to pay tax on goods imported from for