Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1873-03-14
H~lnHOrtHn1H cciSiou-


Spccr VS.. the Commonwealth This es
which was decided by the Supreme Corwr
Appeals on "Wednesday, is important. as +, !,
wolves the construction OF the act Of Assent.
Of lS7O-7l (ch. -, p. IS. which declares r..
law 10 relation to sample merchants. The 90.
is Il, follows
On the I.l;h day Of August. 1872, the s,,o.
ney for the Commonwealth ot Alexandra ~.
fled an information agrinst Alfred Spccr W.T.
was a citizen of New jersey, by which h. j.
formed the Corporation Court Of that civ -,
the said Spcer, who was not at the tiue a r-
dent merchant or manufacturer of thi. Sr,,.
did, by sample. card, description and orH..
rcprcscuta,ipn. sell in aid city wines. hr,.i.'
goods wares aud merchandise without hav:r.
irst obtai,ed the license therefor required +
law. Spclr, by ~cDun5>i. dcmurytd to IL. r.
IunnltiJu, aui lis demurrer Wa o~ycrrurI l.
the c,tsrt. lie thea plead uot guilty IL III. H.
formation. ard The ease was tncd and Srr,
fund guilty IS tic jury ard Il tinc .ly-;
asair>r him for 5000. n" moved fr a ,mr
trial, which the court refused TO grant, mi
thercup1u he appealed 10 this court. IT,.
question thus presented 10y this cast 10 TN.
court. Is whether or not the >ati act Of Assem-.
bly, OF \ ~lrglula l. repu"uaut t. aItlc,c J.. >c4In
S and TO article 1 section > Of the C"G>i;liu
otiha United States. aid, theretu.r VOID. fins
court holds tJuigc IAniersvu delivering tn.
o]pinion) that there was III error III al: ilI..
ment If the corporation court oI AicXmill.
everything the demurrer. upon tic g;0uni La
the act VI Assembly Under With the paint;
in error was proseculc,! l. nVt in cv;ilict viii,
the Constitution OF the United States. Irm
a fair construction of thr said arG, there i, u,
discrimination IL favor II a citizen uI th!, State,
The word PRESIDENT as used in %cuuacc,i ~
with the words. "mcrciiaut, III, chaulc or man,
uiacrure:.i' WAS uct lntcuicd to lmpul1 L DIR.
sonal residence, tu: cply the pace # mi.
ness Aud tIlis. we !hink. i: Implied ty ne
rhfa-vVlogy Itself. III l. more clearly ,IoNa
b., section lii Of tie same "l.pt.r 30.
der the hcae! CT 'I!ccIlse-to whom ,ira.,.
cd which provides that Il "iccne
may be granted to any crlZ"n ii lh.
State to any person entitled 10 tn
privileges and :mmuai,lss OF a ciA.n tierv
Of (which embraces the c;t;z,ns OF a&y f the
United States: 10 any person Resting il tue
State ; u any pcrS' or cVmp.Hy IIoylas a
place Of business ii the State and loin. 80.
sincSs ~lllcreat; "a. any corporation created by
this State or any OF the La!t"G States, a..
so that a citizen If any Of the lni;ci Sia~,
has the same p~riyil"g. Of ob:aing a Iic:n,c ~
der this ac5 that 4 ciI:Zcu oi tii> State ha>. All,
as we have seen, is liable cn.y t. the s4l&.
penalty that citz II OF thr Stat: is hattie d.
for selling or o~tlcriag to sell by salrpe, wiI.9u
license. 1t is also evi.Icut that the a:I a.or,-
said is purely a revcint las, ard bot dr>.gH5
to regulate commerce, aud is p!aiiiy bot III
cprh,ct with the CLAUSE III tie Federal Jo,r!Ir
ton which invests Congress wiki power 10
regulate commerce. with foreign n%@ttoas. ami
among the scvera. States ana with Tue Indian
tribes" 1t can't hc perceived now Il ,ax upor
a business witch does not discriminate as w
the residences or citizenship If the pc!>on who
is engaged IN tie business and subject 10 thc
tax can he Il reputation OF c"nl,ucrcc. l&r
cour, Is o! o@piniun therefore that the ACT ai9%
said is upt unconstitutional. and that th,:c i
no error in the judgment Of tie court t!oT
ovcrruiiGg the demurrer, aud that the :anc be
affirmed.
This case Wal, lr4uad here orally BY the .l-
tornGy-Gencrai On bchnlf .! the Co!Ilnoa,
wealth. ANA by Nlcs>r>. Charles =. Stuart AN
George \. Mushbach III u printed L!icI for
Speer.
This case is important because ii will delrl.
terluine the action oi the lower courts ii I'll:
State in regard to the Sample law Since
the decision Of the Supreme Court of the lur
ted States in the case Of Ward vs.. Maryland,
T.. Wallace, HIS, Simple merchants from 9th
or States have not been ii1ci for selling w!tLr
out ~liccusc, we b"llrvu, bccau.c our !Wr
courts were cI opinion that that case autlo.iz
ed The said merchants u sell without lIcrn".
The decision in this case shows that the w
gin!a act not only differs from The Mrylaai
act, winch was Declared tn be uncon,titu,voa
in plrascpiogy, but ai-n IN latent ana rtcc,
and settles the law il this State uuui " |,
oycrruled 10y the Supreme Court Of the UH'iv1
Statcs.-Ri'chmomd Uh,g.