The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1868-08-20

black, 62O,) to the decisions Of the court a,
his term.
In all these cases the opponents Of the
hxes levied by the states were able to place
heir opposition on no express provision OF
he Constitution, except in that of Brown VS..
Iaryland. But in all the other cases, and
h that case also, the court distinctly placed
be inyalidity of the state taxes on the
round that they ihterfered with an authority
f the federal government, which was Itself
My to be sustained as necessary and
roper to the exercise of some other power
Expressly granted.
In the Passenger Cases, to which reference
as already been made, Justice Grier, with
HON Justice Catrun cor cured, makes this
ne of the four propositions on which they
| ED the tax void in those cases. Judge
II awe expresses his assent to Judge Grier's
Jews; and perhaps this ground received the
Occurrence OF more of the me nbers of the
'ourt who constituted the ma jority than any
ther.
But the principles here laid down may be
bund more clearly stated in the dissenting
Ipinion OF the Chief Justice IN those cases,
nd with more direct pertinencv to the case
ow before us than anywhere else.
After expressing his views fully in favor Ct
ne validity of the tax, which Re said had ex
Elusive reference to foreigners, SO far as those
|ases were concerned, he proceeds to say, for
he purpose of preventing mlSaI orehen>Ion,
hat SO lar as the tax affec ted American citi
EMS it could not in his opinion be maintained.
|Ie then adds Living as We do under
|ommOn government. charged with the great
Ioncerns of the whole Union, every citizen of
be United States from the most remote
Rates or territories, is entitled to free access
Ut ONLY to the principal departments estab-
[shed at Washington, bat also t" its Judicial
Eibunals and public Offices in every state in
he Union. For all the great
imposes for which the federal government
,as formed we are one people, with one con
non country. We are all citizens of he
United States, and as members ofthe same
Ommunity must have the right to pass and |
epass through every part of it without inter- !
upton, as freely as in our own states. And |
tax imposed bv a state, for entering its ter |
tories or BIZ tborS, Is Inconsistent with the |
ights which belong to citizens Of other states
5 members n the Union, and with the OBJ |
,ctS which T. + Union was intended to at
.in. Such power in the States could pro-
uce nothing but di>cord and mutual irrta-
on. and they very clearly do not possess it "
Although these remarks are found in
issenting opinion thev - not relate to the
latter on which the e. mt was founded.
hey accord with the Ia'arences which we
ave ALREADY drawn from the Constitution
self, and from the decisions Of this court in
1pos:tion ofthat instrument.
Those principles. aS We have already
ated them III this opiuion, must govern the
-esent case.
The judgment Of the Supreme Court of the
ate Of Nevada is therefore reversed, and
e case remanled 70 that court. with direc-
ons 20 discharge the plaintiff in error from
.stody.
Mr.. JUSTICE Ct TFF0ED.
| agree that the state law in question is
and void, but ain not able
concur in the principal reasons assigned
the opinion Of the court in support of that
Inclusion.
On the contrary. hold that the act Of the
,te legislature i inconsistent with the pow
conferred upon Congress- to regulate COM
,rce among the several states, and | think .
g judgment Of the court should have been
iced exclusively upon that ground.
Strong doubts are entertained by ME whcth-
Congress possesses tAe power TO lew any
Cd tax, but whether 50 or MT, | am clear
1t the state legislature cannot impose any
n burden upon commerce among the sew
Il states. Such commerce is secured
linst sucn legislation in the states by the
Institution, irrespective OF aay congress
nal action.
The Chief Justice also disserts, and con-
$ IN the views nave EXPIRE ssed. !
SALE OF PEws.-The paws of the Erisco-