Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-08-04

double taxation cannot be collected. I
IL as much OF the act of 1858 as II it hai
been repeated ia the same words.
The third leeal question which the cas-
/ presents Is, whether il Is competent 70
the Legislature of this State 10 authoriz
the collection Of tax upon goods lm
| ported from another State, to be sold Il
! the original package. The provision o
p, the Constitution Of the United States
section five, paragraph three, rests II
Congress the power to regulate com.
meTee between States, and OF section
ten, paragraph two, prohibiting the State
from imposing any import or export du,
ties. No language could be more ex
plicit or less susceptible OF mlseOnstruc.
ton. In every well regulated school
where political economy has been taught,
this Constitutional Law has ever been
promulgated. The right and power to
tax imports certainly belongs exclusively
to Congress, and cannot be exercised by
any State.
The case Of Brown vs.. State of Mary.
land, cited by the attorney for the petit
TONERS, l have examined carefully.
Justice Marshall declares positively and
plainly this Ia to be the laW-that Is, that
Congress only has the power 10 regulate
trade between States. 1t cannot be DOS
sibie that our intelligent Legislature in-
tended, when providing for the taxation
Of sales by merchants to include sale oil
imports in the original package.
The above questions have been clearly
and deliberately presented to our oonsid-
Grafton by the County Attorney as well
as by the shle counsel for the petitioners
Gen. Hume. We have also read with
benefit the learned and exhaustive opin-
ion upon the questions of Gen. Pike and
Col. Tyler. All agree ia the main as to
the Legality of the conclusion to which l
have arrived.
Therefore, after calm consideration OF
the accompanying petition OF the mer-
chants Of Memphis, asking to be relieved
from certain tax, and to instruct the
Clerk in regard to collecting the sans, il
allowed to stand, hSve come to the fol.
lowing conclusions:
First-That it Is unconstitutional to tax
goods liz the original package imported
into this State from another State, Con-
RTess having entire cOntrolover the COM
mefce between States and that it was
not the intention Of the Legislature to
tax the same.
SecOnd-Fhst it wss not the intention
VI t-a0 Tx 6tStatNASf VI IL SO, hot IN accord
ance with the revenue act originally
passed and amended in relation TO this
subject, to tax any article of merchandise
sold by one merchant il the State 10 an
other more than once.
Third-ThAt this Board OF County
Commissioners have the entirs and sole
control over the levying OF all county
taxes, TO increase the same, or to modify
or annul any order made in regard to
the matter, and that the implication Is
strong in favor OF our power under sec
tions 1912 and 1918, of the Code to con
troll the matter OF State taxation in this
county. b that as IL may, do not
propose 20 assume or take that RESPONSE
bility, while, at the same time, I feel it
to be peculiarly proper in case of differ
ence of opinion between the County
Clerk and citizens relative to the coIlec-
tion OF taxes that the same should be
submitted to this Board for the construc-
tion Of the law, his being merely a min
isterisl Office.
FOurth-That We believe the County
Clerk is mistaken Ia his Interpretation Of
the law.
Ffth-Fully realizing that the present
county tsxupOn merchants ID destructive
to the interests Of the city and Shelby
county, l therefore Recommend the fore
going order.