The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-09
uslsED s yATEs SUPREME COURT.

Authority of States 10 Regulate Their Own
Commerce Afiirmcd-Pay Of Servants OF
Army Onicers-.One Of ErenOnt's Army Con.
tracts Nulliied.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 1859.
No. l29.-Wood,lsG, CT al. rs. farhanl, Collector
Error 10 tie Stprelee Court or AlGbana- plain
tits are merchants In Alabama aud import into that
State merchandise from other States Of the Union,
which they sell in the original packages and claim
they not subject to the tax imposed by the State
Of Alabama on the gross proceeds OF all saes made
In the State being protected by that clause OF the
federal constitution which prohibits the Suites from
levying any imposts on imports and exports. The
Supreme Court Of Alabama held the tax to be valid
and the case was brought here on writ Of
error. MI. justice Miller delivered the opinion Of
the court 4iirming the judgment below; holding
that the provision OF the constitution relied upon
by the plsip..us was intended to apply only to
imports and exIGrts nom foreign countries, and
that state has the power to tax the sales OF all
goods imported from the different States, provided
the tax does not discriminate as against such goods
but Is general IN Its character applying as well to
similar productions Of the State laying tho tax. II
this were not tho CASE say the court. then persons
Of large wealth trading in the cities OF the Union as
importers OF merchandise from the different States
would De wholly relieved rom any contribution
ment whose laws protect them. MIR. Justice Nelson
dissented, holding the established Interpretation OF
the clause Of The constitution in question fixed
by the construction Of Mi. Chief Justice Marshall.
Mr. Chief Justice Tanev and Mr.. Justice Strong
maintained that 1t applied rs well to inter.State
commerce as to foreign imports and exports;
besides It was expressly provided by the constitution
that Congress should regulate commerce among the
several states as well Us the foreign commerce of
the country The dissenting opinion then proceeded
to show at length that by the opinion of the court
the different States were left to the unrestricted tax
alton OF theStates, even TO the utter destruction Of
such trade. Now York could, without dscr tmina-
in favor OF her citizens, proceed to tax the
productions OF pennsylvania to an unlimited extent
because the people OF New York produced little or no
coal so the State OF Pennsylvania without dscrim-
nation IN favor Of her own people, could tax the salt Of
New York to any extent. SO IN like manner as 10
be made the basis OF burdcnsome taxation at the
North without injury 10 the people OF those States
and rtce verso as to tho productions OF the North
when taken South. The rule laid down, therefore,
to discrimination failed, and there was no barrier
LETT 10 protect commerce between the States from
HasOn rs. lot, Coitecfor.-Thls was q similar
case, and was decided on the main points by tie de-
In the dissenting opinion.
the &eamer Cu,'rou, Belonging 10 the baltimore
Greea-Aprea, rom lie CrcuH co"s5 H., he 'J pts.
ufct u MarMand.--This was a case or collision In
the chesapeake, Bay IN December, 1895 The
schooner Lucy, owned BY Green was bound
down., Il was testified BY the officers Of tue
put the helm OF the steamer to port; and this ACT,
It was claimed, would have prevented the collision
mac, haa t.e schooner Kept er course as required by
until the collision became certainty and to have
then sarboarded her helm merely to tighten the
loss and the owner ibelled the steamer The decree
below sustained the l,be ana the railroad company
the opinion Of tho court Affirming the decree below
remarking that the only dlnIcuiry found
" 'e esnn sSss w ssH IN the
facts were PLAN, and these condemned tie coiiTse
Of the steamer IT being conceded that the steamer
ported her helm wnen the schooner was irst seen.
her officers must have certainly thought there v as
no danger OF collision, aud this being So il was
,her GUY anu tie law TO Keep ont OF the way winch
they did not do. Tue schooner was held 20 be ok.
cusable for her movement at The moment Of the col.
islon, because the purpose was to prevent II pos
serious injury. F'
No. $50 g,tted states rs. G0more.-Aplea, nom
last session OF the court The deientlant WINS n len.
tenant colonel in the military service nom the 10Th
and Tom SO as 70 ca se un a n % MaSn
held the rank OF colonel. During this period he was
III the active service and kept two private servants
the % OF March, 1865, lie received pay for these ser
wants az the rate or Twenty-Five dollars per month.
The claim was that, under the act OF 1899 he was
entitled to receive, as part OF his compensat,on'
the pay, ratons and clothing for each servant actin.
ally kept, not exceeding the number aloweI - hv
existing regulations or money In lieu inereof any
by that act the pay, fations and clothing o such
servants was Tue rate allowed to privaes In the
OF the act Of June, 1884, the pay Of pfvaes liked 5y
law was sixteen dollars per month IRON
tne ist OF May OF that year, aud that
the onicer was accordingly entitled to have re-
cevod Tor his two servants tbiIty-two dollar
per month, instead of twenty-five dollars. the
sum received from The LIST OF May 1904 to the I'd OF
March 1885. me action was brought for the diner
ence. The Court OF Claims gavS the oficeT the
amount OF his claim and the United states appealcd
Cnef Justice chase now delivered the opinion OF the
Court reversing the Judgment OF the Court Of Oaims
and re.Handng the cause. After examination of |,
the various statutes on the subject the 0nlalon con-