The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-09

such tax as in its nature capable OF appor'ion-
ment. without creating great INEQUALITY and MUS
capable Of appOrtiOnment among the states. as
required the case OF direct taxation, nor Is 1t IN
any respect tax on land. but strictly and pro-
perry duty LAID upon specific commodity or arti-
Gle OF sumption. Nor IL TINS tax on exports,
because u Is Land alike on all cotton, whether
exported or not, aud without regard 10 exportauon
Articles exported from any State WI tim the meaning
OF the constitution are articles exported from any
state to foreign countries. The distinction between
an export duty ana excise Is that IN the one case
the tax can only attach upon the happening OF a
particular event-to wit the expectation OF the ar
tice on when 1t Is laldwnlle IN the other the TAX
may attach 10 the article generally and irrespective
OF the happening OF sucn an event. Where tax OF
tne latter description Is laid upon COMMODITY,
whether grown or manufactured While IN the hands
Of the producer or manufacturer and without re-
gard to Its future Destination Its character certainly
does not become changed into a tax OF the former
description ny the mere TACT that part, or even the
whole Of the article thus taxed afterwards entered
Tor export 70 u foreign country. That would make
tue LEGALITY OF the tax depend not upon the clrcu-
stances 10 which 1t was adopted by the Legisla-
ture, an winch existed at the time OF it5
collection, but upon those subsequently transpring
IT the mere will OF individuals. In other words the
law imposing the taxes, though perfectly valid
when it took effect upon the article taxed would be
rendered VOID by events happening after It's purpose
naa been fully accomplished and It's operation IN
reference to the article had altogether ceased. The
pr.ncpe, If admitted, would render OF little avail
all excise taxation upon articles OF commerce.
state cannot TAX imports IN the hands OF the Importer
but can tax merchandise imported alter IL has
passed out OF the hands OF the imoorter II IN MS
uduus dlieT the paCAancS are DIOhtu. OH Tie odiue
principe, Congress can tax, as q commodity, mer-
chandlse in the hands OF Its producer, when may
afterwards be exported the tax being ald upon the
production and not upon any person VINO may ex-
port any part OF IT. and IN consequence or SUCH
expectation. The fact that more Than half the
cotton produced In the country Is exported to a
foreign country has nothing TO do with the con-
stuallty OF the law. II Congress cannot
constitutionaIly lay tax upon the production or
manufacture OF "a commodity, because more than
Onehalf OF II Is exported, 1t cannot upon any COM
modify OF which less than one-half Is exported Inc
Ityftn al tlu nf fnnr Hlnn
pend upon the state OF trade; ana Congress cannot
constItulionaiy tax any commodity II some part OF
II Is annually exported 1t cannot lay any excise tax
on commodities at all without providing for draw
back IN case OF expectation. such q constitution
nulnfcs the power OF Congress to lay excise taxes.
The tax Is an excise tax alG Is uniform throughout
the United states the TACT that cotton or any otner
article Is not produced or found alike IN all parts OF
the country docs not aiect the question. There ID
no product OF agriculture or manufacture which Is
onate TO the population or anything else OF all the
States. IL mas been the opinion OF Congress from
the first, as would appear from It's legislation, that
taxes on personal property kept for use were excise
sale, and that the tax upon such products as to-
bacco, manufactured or made Tor sale, was an ex-
else tax.
The questions were argued at great length on both
sides no less than five different briefs being filed.
p. Phillips. Albert Pike, Il. w. Johnson, NJ. L..
Sharxey James Hughes and r. Toif for plaintiff in
error. Il. X. Hoar, Attorney General, and w. A..
Field, Assistant Attorney General, for the govern
Ment.
4. d. Wheeler OF San Francisco: William T. Wal
lace, OF San Jose. CAL. Robinson Ton, OF Mem
phis, Tenn; Eugene NJ. Wilson, Of Minneapolis,
MIMI; Albert Todd, OF st. LOUIS, No.. and @. L.
Shaw, OF New York city, were admitted to the bar
Of The Supreme Court.