New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-14
THE COURTS.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, u. c., Oct. 13.-NO. f28-
Moses waIing agt The Mayor Aldermen &C., Of Mobile.
Error to Supreme Court of Alabama-The appellant,
merchant residing in the city Mobile, complains OF
tax levied under State authority of so cents on soe
gross proceeds of sales He is vendor OF imported
from Great Britain, and brought ballast by ships
coming to Mobile for cotton. There being shoals which
wharves OF city, their cargoes are discharged By
lighters, rs 80 miles below the city. Waring
when laden at the wharf Is weighed and subjected to
duty by the Custom-H0use officials II then stored
warehouse rented by Waring and by him sold and dey
cred to the purchaser His sales claimed TO be always
In the original packages unbroken, and in the form
and condition when received by him from the vessel Of
Importation and in quantities OF 20 sacks and upward
The salt usually TO Mobile laden account OF the
purchases it while at sea ITO arrive" and sometimes
after the vessel on which it was laden, has en-
to have acquired the salt by purchase, before il
reaches the lnits Of the city OF Mobile before dues
are opened or cargo discharged The transportation 70
the city made by Warning at his expense and risk
complained OF on sales Of all goods merchandise ex
cept cotton and sought to coerce from the plaintiff such
obtained injunction restraining the collection the
station aud laws Of the United States but on appeal 70
the Supreme Court OF Alabama the Clancelors decree
tanning the validity OF the authority to make the exac
tons The question TO be decided here IT, Can the state
of Alabama either directly indirectly authorize inter
ference with salt proceeds situated set forth
The plaintiff claims that cannot and cites the Constitu
regulate commerce with foreign nations" and that no
State shall without the OF Congress- lay any I'm
posts duties imports exports, except what may
be absolutely necessary for executing the inspection
laws" The salt Is claimed to be an import and while In
the hands Of the plaintiff remained In the original pack
age as received by him from the officers Of the United
States In that form only did he deal with It, and In thas
form passed from his hands deceased to have the form
OF an import and became part of the property OF the
state only when IL passed from his hands, TILL henit and
its proceeds protected by the laws OF the United
States On the part Of the City OF Mobile 1t Is commended
that the consgnees Of these cargoes OF sas
when shipped are Importers and that the plaintu Is
purchaser from them, and is therefore liable TO the tax
The theory of the plaintiff that while the merchandise re-
mains unbr0keu packages IL Is TO be regarded as an
import without reference to the question who imported
It. the appellee contends, has been expressly overruied
by the recent OF Pervear agt Commonwealth (el
Wall 49, which 1t s said "that the circumstance that
State applies TO the merchandise In original
Ia wholly inmaterial that this circumstance Is only
available to the importer Merchandise In the original
once sold by the importer " taxable as other
pouerty The local question also involved as To whas
are the limits OF the port OF Mobile. with view OF 90
termnng whether the plaintiff purchased the SAT- oeyoho