The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-15

Collector 4 Ga. NO. I5s.-The Materials OF the Ca.
mache vs.. The Coast WreckIng Company OF New
York. No. l5s.-wilIIam Adrick 81 al VS.. The Etnn
insurance Company. No. i69.-M. Bede VS.. The
Steamship Potomac. No. 1a2.-J. H. Mole vs.. b. J.
Mole et a. These cases were continued 70 the next
term.
No. 15e-Josiah NJ Mills and Flora NJ. NILS, plain.
n1s IN error, VS.. smith. No. 155mAionzo n Major
plaintiff In error Va Violet A. Williams adminlnls
tratrlx OF William ii. Wliama-These cases were
submitted on the printed briefs
40. l2V--L. T. Woodruff ct al. va. John Parhan
Sollector, &c, and No. 100, John W. Hlnson Vs.
Elisha u. Lott, Collector, 6e.-These cases were
arguea together. Involving Identical questions, ex-
the treasury OF the state and In tue former case 1t
y for the city treasury. The plaintiffs are mer-
GIANTS IN Mobile, Ala, ana import into that State
msfcnaudse IN large quantities from other states,
WHEN they sell IN the original packages unbroken
.ne same condition In which they were received
W taein Inc authorities OF the city In the one case,
M OF tho State in the other sought 10 collect of them
lax similar to that In Waring vs.. The Mayor,
@o.' OF Mobile, reported yesterday-dfty cents
per gallon for liquor Imported within the
State in No. 100, and fifty cents on every 500 gross
saies IN 49, Property OF this plantlr was seized
10 satisfy the tax. and these actions are brought to
recover damages for such seizures and sale. The
cases passed through the State courts aad finally the
Supreme Court OF the state affirmed the validity OF
the ordinance Of the city and the law OF the State
and sustained the authority exercised by the Col
lector. The court In effect decided, here cor
Tended, that citizen OF New York or Ohio cannot
send to Mobile, Ala, his merchandise or manutac-
lures TO be sold for his account by his agent at
ductoH OF private SAFE In the state ana condition IN
which he prefers 1t for the market without mourning
charge for taxes by the state and municipal
authorities at Mobile. This decision, II il IN.
sisted, Is in contraventOn or those provisions OF
the constitution which declare that Congress
shall have power TO regulate commerce among
the several States" and "n0 STATE shall levy
any imposts or duties on Imports OF exports" The
theory of the constitution, is submitted Is plain
and these taxes can no more be legally eXacted than
Louisiana or Alabama could require q tax on each
bale OF cotton received from Mississippi and other
cotton growing States for expectation through their
ports, New York, 1t ID said, ID the great exporting
port OF the country, but is 1t competent for that
state TO demand tax on each article received for
sale or expectation from other States In the hands
OF the merchants receiving them, or to demand q
tax upon the gross proceed OF sale, II the sale Is
madef The statement OF the question Is believed
to furnish Its own answer. The defendants submit
the following propositions substantially :-Goods
brought into State from another State or the Union
are not imports In the constitutional sense, and II
they were, tax upon all sales OF goods within the
State Is not tax on imports. Goods imported from
foreign countries are subject to state taxation IN
the hands OF the purchaser whether in the original
package or not. Goods thus purchased from the
importer are not again entitled TO exemption from
State taxation py being carried from one state to
another. Though the acts IN question may aGect the
regulation OF commerce their inyalidity can only
be maintained by showing direct repugnance to
some act OF Congress- p. Hamilton and john A,
Canpbel for tue plaintiffs In error p. Phips, Tor
QefendenlS.