The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-10-01

The following memorial will be read with In
terest BY our commercial community. A SINH
lar law to the one complained Of has been In
force for some time in Savannah and has not
been objected to either on account of ine1pe-
diency or unconstltutionaity, but the very fact
Of no opposition being made has prevented dis
cussicn, and the real merits Of the question
will probably be- now brought to light for the
first time:
To the Honorable the Mayor and Aldermen Of
the City Of Charleston:
The memorial of the undersiS iSned respect
fully showeth
That by the proceedings Of your honorable
body it appears that an ordinance to raise sup
plies for the year 1868, and for other purposes,
is about to be changed and modified IN several
particulars, in enc of which is the following :,
zone dollar on every hundred dollars OF el
freight and passenger lists Of all steamers % or
calling vessels, paid or payable in this city fhe
same "a able monthly-the consignee or agent
of sail vessels to be held liable for the pay
ment of the same into the hands OF the Clty
Treasurer"
And this proposed modification of the said
ordinance, your memoralists respectfully SUD-
NIT is in derogation OF the paramount aqtnor
ity of the Constitution and laws OF the Unlleo
States, and in its operation calculated to AFFECT
the commerce OF the city, in the restoration OF
which all persons interested in the prosperity
of this CITY are now 80 much exercised. Your
memoralists believe that in o class oil cases
which have been decided by the Supreme court
of the United States the principle involve IN
this modification had been held unconstltu-
tional.
In the cases now referred to, the local au-
thoritics of New York provided That certain
officer of that CITY should be entitled to receive
from tho master of every vessel from foreign
port, for himself and each passenger, 81 501sO;
for each steerage passenger, 81; and from the
master of each coasting vessel Tor each person
on board, 25-100. The question as to the con-
stitutionalitY Of this law was raised IN the To-
cal courts Of New York and thence taken to the
Supreme Court, where it was held unconstitu--
tional. The transportation OF passengers, SAID
the court, is regulated by Congress; II that
transportation be branch OF commerce, the
act Of New York is regulation OF commerce.
No distinction, said the court, could be mace
as regards the law between the transportation
of merchandise and passengers. For the trans
portation Of both the shipowner realizes q
profit, and each is the subject OF commercial
regulation by Congress. When the merchan-
disc is taken from the ship and becomes min
gled with the property Of the people OF the
local law. But until then the merchandise is
an import, not subject to the taxing pos wer OF
the State; and the same rule applies to passen-
gers.
Submitting, then, respectfully to your hon
orable body the question Of the constlt1tion
atty of the proposed modification OF this ordl-
nance as having been settled by tribunal OF
the highest authority, your memorlalists IN
addition thereto would srlehy ask your consd-
Grafton OF the eff .ct Of such measure, even if it
were constitutional.
No one can be Indifferent to the present
conditions Of the city, nor unmndful OF the
great efforts which have been made, and must
still be made, to secure for it the prosperity 1t
once enjoyed. And no means at lts command
can be more potential than the encourageme
OF the shipping interest, by which easy, cheap
and prompt transmission Of property and per-
sons can be made to the great marts Of bust
ness which lie north of US. 1t is only 30 that
we can successfully contend with inland routes,
winch shorten the distance from other places
and divert travel and trade from our city.
Nor perhaps will it be for us 10 be satisfied
that we are on the road to assured prosperity,
until daily communication by sea with tbs
ports of the North will, because of its cheap
ness, expedition and convenience, give to the
city the advantages Of great Southern
mart. That the proposed tax will not only
tend to retard the accomplishment Of what Is
much Of it rs is already accomplished, can
scarcely admit Of doubt 1t is not that
freight should be free that we have brought
this proposed modification to your notice, but
it is that freight should not be unduly aud
doubly taxed, that we have done 30. all the
freight which is paid here, pays it's aprropr!-
ate tax, under some other namo and the ad-
ditional imposition provided by this modidca-
tion, increases by 80 much the burden it bears,
dimiuishes The profit OF the ship owner, alrea--
dy much reduced, and tends TO the removal
OF that interest to other and more profitable
lines
Your memorialists, therefore, respectfully
ask Of your honorable body thu reconsidera-
ton OF this matter, and the rejection Of the
proposed modification.
Ravenel & Co. w. B. Smith Co.
James Adger & Co. W. P. Hall
Mordecai & Co. Street Brothers d Co.
VIM. Roach. 81. Baker & Co.
Robt. Mure & Co. Courtenay & Trenholm
Shackelford & Kelly. Patterson & stock.
G. A. Trenholm l. Son. Jno. Fraser Co.
J. D. Aiken & Co. r. T. Walker.
John & Theo. Getty. ]. T. Welsman.