The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-08


was fined by the Mayor OF Mobile for violating
That ordinance in conducting the business OF HIS
agency without having paid the $500 and obtained
the license required He appealed to the Circuit
Court OF the state, which affirmed the Judgment OF
the Mayor. He then appealed to the Supreme Court
OF Alabama and that Court affirmed the Judgment
OF the Circuit Court. writ OF error to the SUI
preme Court OF the State brings the case here The
record presents the question whether the old-
nance, in requiring payment for license TO trans
act IN Mobile business extending beyond the
limits OF the State OF Alabama, was repngnant to
the provisions OF the constitution, vcstlng In the
Congress OF the United States the power ito regu-
late commerce among the several States"
In several cases decided at tins term we nave
had occasion TO consider questions OF State taxa
ton as affected by this clause of the constitution
In that OF the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
vs.. commonwealth OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
held that the State could not constitutiOnaly i'm
pose and collect tax upon the tonnage OF freight
taken up within it's limits and carried beyond
them, or taken up beyond its limits and brought
within them-that Is to say, In other words, upon
Interstate transpor tation. In another case be-
tax upon the gross receipts for transportation by
railroad and canal companies, chartered by the
state Is not OBNOXIOUS TO the objection OF repug-
nancy TO the constitutional provision. The tax on
tonnage was held TO be unconstitutional because IL
was m erect restriction upon Interstate com
be entirely free. The tax on gross receipts was
held not to be repugnant to the constitution be-
cause imposed on railr DAD Companies M the nature
OF general income tax and incapable oil being
transferred as burden upon the property carried
from one State to another,
tuti0nai ana unconstitutional taxation by the State
was acknowledged and has always been acknowl-
'ar ~ TINS Court; but that there is such line Is
t.g and the Court can best discharge its duty by
.sserminlng in each case on which SIDE
the tax complained of is. II is as
the state in respect to taxation unimpaired
az to maintain the powers or the federal govern
ment IN their integrity In the second Of the cases
recently decided the whole Court agreed that
tax on business carried on within the State and
without discrimination between Its citizens and
the citizens OF other States might be constitution
ally imposed and collected.
The Case now before US seems to come within
this principle The Southern Express Company
was Georgia corporation, carrying on business in
Mobile. There was no discrimination In the taxa
ton OF Alabama between 1t and the corporations
and citizens OF that state. The tax for license was
the same by whomsoever the business was trans
acted. There Is nothing in the case, therefore,
which brings 1t within the case Of Ward vs.. Mary
erned by the principles settled in Woodruff
va. Parham Is Wallace, 123). Indeed, no objection
TO tne license Sc tax was taken at the Bar upon the
Tor the reason that 1t imposed burden upon inter-
State commerce, and vas, therefore, repugnant to
the clause OF the constitution which confers upon
Congress the power to regulate commerce among
the several States. 1t is TO be observed that Con-
gress has never undertaken to exercise this power
IN any manner inconsistent with the municipal or
dinance under consideration, and there several
cases in which the Court has asserted the right OF
the State to egisate, In the absence OF legislation
by Congress-, upon subjects over which the consti-
tuition has clothed tnat body with legislative au-
thority. t.License Cases" Howard, 5o4; Wilson
Cooley vs. Board OF Wardens, u Howard, 1851
But 1t Is not necessary to resort TO the prin-
ciples maintained In these cases for the decision Of
the case now before u.s. 1t comes directly within
the rules laid down in the relating to the tax
upon the gross receipts OF railroads In that case
We said, ut Is not everything that affects COM
merce that amounts to regulation OF 1t within
the meaning of the constitutions We admitted
that 1.-The ultimate effect' OF the tax the gross
receipts might be Ito increase the cost OF transport
tatlon" but we held that the right to tax gross re-
celpts, though derived in part from inter State
transportation, was within the general authority
OF the States to tax persons, property, business
or occupations within their limits. The IL
business carried on within the city OF Mobile. The
business licensed included transportation beyond
the limits Of the State. or rather the making OF
contracts within the State for such transpOrta ion
beyond 1t. 1t was with reference this feature OF
the business that the tax was, In part. imposed;
but 10 was no more tax upon Interstate COM
merce than general tax on drayage would be,
because the licensed drayman might some times be
employed in hauling goods to vessels to be trans
would be going too far SO to the limi is OF
state taxation. The Judgment OF the Supreme
Court OF Alabama Is, therefore, affirmed.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECISION
Deite ?. Ripley, Admnistratrix, and James
susacsasnd q inc Estate Of Wills
way Passengers Assurance Company, OF Hartford
COMM error to the Circuit Court Of the United
states for the Western District OF Michigan.-Mr.
Court.
Iue Sul OelOW was originally brought In the CIR
mnstrators Of willis J. Ripley, to recover the sum
Of $4,000, IA which he was assured against
Circuit s United states upon the n apple Ic
cation OF the defendant, and has bee brought here
BY writ ofoespor by the plain TINS. The record
shows that ~ only error complained OF IL that
the Court held nat the insured walking on foot at
the time when tl!e injuries were received by him,
was not !. X public Or private convey
ance, " Lea@W9 ~ the P0ncy.
tfon OF the pott61s9 mat instrument was dated on
the SIN Of MekL leee, and good for one day. com.
mencing with d4he. y stipulated for the payment
OF 1000 to tpe legal representatives OF the
sured in the event Of his death, within sixty days
from the happening OF the accident, from injuries
ana Sy
while the assured wes travelling BY public or pri-
ats &c gnsa tat
sured proceeded BY steamboat to ytlisge about
eight miles from his residence, and ffom that vii
ceyed injuries By ' Violence the the s eecss Of Of
which ne died soon aiterwards, and within the time
limited ans db By ne policy ,.., ma. :. ,.. 49,
injuries he was travelling by public or private con-
vcyance. That he was travelling Is clear enough,
private conveyance. The contract must receve
the construction which the language used fairly
warrants. What was the understanding OF the
naturally have been derived from the language
useds 1t seems to MS that walking would not
NC pKChcubeQ W INC mluu ~ u means OF
public or private conveyance. Public conveyance
naturally suggests vessel or vehicle employed in
the general conveyance q passengers. Private
vate individual. II this was the sense In which
the language was understood by the parties the
deceased was not, when injured, travelling within
the terms Of the policy. There is nothing to show
that 1t was not The Judgment OF the Circuit Court
is therefore affirmed.
HIS LAST UTTERANCEs.
The Chief Justice always read his opinions
and ON Thursday, after concluding these, he an.
nounced an amendment to the eighth rule, which
has been published, and directed the Court to be
adjourned to the time and place appointed by law.
These we're his last official utterances The Court
then separated, after much leave taking, the Chief
Justice being congratulated on mis- condition, and
apparently feeling cheerful and hopeful as to his
health.
ON THE BENCH
the Chief Justice was always strict In enforcing
order, and would not tolerate the reading OF news