The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-01-02
Sample Merchants---A Card from MI.
Barrett's Attorney.
ELEVENTH STREET, December 80, ISL.

Editors Of Dispatch, knowing that you
Would not Intentionally aninadrert unlustIy
upon or enormously ccnSurc any one, L wish
to explain through your columns the grounds
upon which Judge Underwo2d'5 decision iii
the casc Of Mr.. Barrett, the New York sam
pie merchant, was given. The hdbcdS cor
nus act of 1867 Of the United States Con-
g1css, amended in 1865, gives the Federal
Judges the right, and makes it their duty, to
issue the writ whenever the pctitioncralleScs
he is illegally detained in custody in contra
rention of the Constitution or laws OF the
United States lit should appear upon the
hearing that he is so detained, It Is the
Judges duty to discharge him under that
act. Section 101 Of the tax laws of 1870 and
1871 il, in the opinion of many lawyers
besides myself, (and so, also, Is the city ortli-
nance on the subject of - sample mercllantS,")
unconstitutional and illegal because it as
crintRatcs between resilient and nonresident
:.sampe merchants" such discrimination
having been pronounced in the case OF Ward
Us. The State of Maryland in the United
States Supreme Court unconstitutional and
illegal. And it was upon that decision and
under the United States habeus corpus statutes
that Mr.. Barrett was discharged by Judge
Underwood.
As to the policy Of the laws concerning
"samplc merchants" | have nothing here to
say, but will only add that few days after Nr.
Barrctt's arrest q bill WAS introduced into the
Legislature to repeal the clause Q01} in the
tax laws Of 1901 in relation to Sunplc mer-
chants. Yours, respectfully,
JOHN JOINS, JR.
We did not mean to censure Major JOINS
Perhaps lawyer is justifablc in getting
even UNDERWOOD to discharge his client from
Jail We admitted that UNDERWOOD had Il
right to issue the writ Of habcas corpus, but
censurcd him for not demanding the prisoner
to Jail. UNDERWOOD is that sort of COM
pound of knare and fool that may he called a
dangerous fanatic. 4 lawyer has only to
suggest to him that a negro, or Radical, or
northerner, Is illegally detained, to procure
from him an order for the prisoners immedi-
ate discharge, rs witness the CESAR GRIFFIN
case and others. The incorrigible old ass now
has under consideration the case ola negro who
was convicted in State court upon an intor-
nation Instead of upon an indictment by
grand jury, and UNDERWOOD will doubtless
discharge the negro because the Federal Con-
stitution requires that every person convicted
of an infamous crime Shall have been indicted
by grand jury (every person convicted i'll
the Federal courts is, of course, what the
Constitution mcans). In fact, every lawyer
knows that UNDERwooD's opinions arc con-
temptible. If O woman were convicted
of trying to vote contrary to law,
and imprisoned, he would discharge
her upon writ of habeas corpus upon the
ground that the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments confer the right Of suffrage upon
women, this being his real opinion. 1t
were. in fact, an insult to the poorest justice
of the peace in Richmond to say that UNDER
wooD's opinion is entitled to more respect
than his. Justice WHITE had decided that the
law under which he acted was not in conflict
with the decision of the Supreme Court re-
ferred to by Major JOINS before the writ Of
ha5eas corpus was issued by UNDERWOOD
and that fact of itself was sufficient to satisfy
us that UNDERWOOD. was wrong and WHITE
right. Major JOINS will not claim that US-
pERwooDs decision binds WHITE.
Major JOINS assumes us fact that cannot
be disputed that the Virginia law is uncon-
stitutional he says, because it discriminatcS
between resident and nonresident sample
merchants" If the law does thus discrimi-
nate there is no question between us and
UNDERWOOD. But we do not so read it.
We need not refer to the section named by
Major JOINS. That imposes no tax upon
anybody. 1t merely describes the persons
who shall procure licenses. We quote the
law imposing taxes upon sanlple-merchants,
promising that this law is perfectly consist
ent. when construed Alright, with the law
referred to by Major JOINS. The act i'm
posing taxes says: .-
"The specific license tax On, every person.
other than resident merchant, mechanic, or
manufacturer, for the privilege OF selling BY
sample, card, description, or other represen.
tation, Shall be one hundred dollars"
This act explains the act referred to by
Major JOINS. If there is no tax imposed Oh
nonresident sample-mechants other than
that imposed on resident sample-merchants,
then the law is constitutional for no one
will claim that the law referred to by Major
JOINS imposes any tax. Now. thislast-quoted
law fixes the tax on sample-nerchants-
it says con every person at one hundred
dollars without saying word as to residence.
The exceptions are resident merchants, me-
chasics, aud manufacturers; not resident
salnple-merehants. And the reason Is that
the State Constitution UNDERWOOD was pre-
sident or the convention which framed il
nyoyidoa that tfnaraona saliinp by samDle''