, 1875-11-07
rovf7, Caue Jacob johnson. $1,000 ..

NOT ENTERiD.
Ssas q os1'fs. Name q 0rne1. ''a'uas:o'i Taz.
1uth c.pe. Jacob johnson: s7.ooo!: 49,.
ny.r ordnance duly passed By the Common Coun-
1gI x oi 1e mills On tho dollar WAS levied aud as
sasd for the fiscal yesr 1874, Ill real and personal
rruttty sstd city at the valuation thereof shown
r. he aesessmen, for that year - made By the City
tmersor, &nd On the sth day Of December. 1h74 q
rsn,nt vas issued to George Won Hollen, Coliecto.
d rid city, authorizing and directing him to collect
eaa Tx The warrant was in the same form as the
ssessuent IS far regards the description Of tho
eeaoones and name Of owner md her valuation with
N addts,a,a COLUMN in which the tax carried out
nd md Il {l6, which b IS mills On her vauation.
e warrant IN the uaual form and directed the Col
~ collect the taxes assessed from the persons and
II ranaairg unpaid. the Collector, the 18th Of
6eemtez, 1s75, levied upon 4ud took Possession Of
nd schoosE under the assumed authority Of bis said
*r.rt md held the same by vitue Of said levy at
ths time Of The fling Of the libel in this 1t is
sso admitted that the practice Of the City Assessor
= mixing !. sssessmsnt. s M upon Tesse e. property
oxnezx with :helr other prrsonal property when tbs
cvnes LIST return the same to the Assessor, but
ety the vessel is assessed by in the name Of her
owner srpea-s BY the register IN the Office Of the
United States Collector ot cuEtouas ot the port OF Chi
tzgn.
Its claimed BY the Ebcl1acts thct
1HE LEVY Cp0E TITS VESSEL WAS VOID.
FuH-Becauee this In duty Of Tonnage, within
the tf4FQ clacBe OF u 01
Article os the Constitution Of the United S.atas.
SeonG-Beeanse sid Asfea8rueut and warrant for
tie collection Of said tax void, for the reason thst
the assatsment is against tho vessel itself BY name
and The waant agkloEt the vessel and not x2ains
The owner.
On the part of the respondents yon Ho1len and the
Hbsl that Court Of Admiralty has no Jurisdiction
tn the made By the libel and facts IN this and
fhat the only remedy "a to be found in the courts Of
Ido not ind that this precise Question Of ju-isdo-
ton has erer BEEN raised and passed upon by the
courts II this country ur England. At least neither
1y oEn examination nor the industry Of counsel has
discovered any direct authority bearing upon the
question. Upon general principles. however. am Of
opinion that admiralty has Jurisdiction in case Of
1n4wtul seizure Of maritime property for taxea or
duties. Kent says: Admiralty Possesses authority
to decree restitution Of SLIP rnlswfuly s.thheId b.
wrong dore from the o1ncr. In cases Of iiegaicap
te, bottomry, salvage sod marine torts, the Admir-
a Courts in this country inquire into AID decide
tae nghts and sliea involved II the controse.:g-l
EeGt Sn And the student Of thia branch OF the law
vel knows that the tendency has been to enlarge the
sphere of admiralty Jurisdiction rather than to restrict
Hrsdicon ct al to1ts upon md Injuries to maritime
property committed navigabe waters when 2ctions
Il trespass as in the case would be if committed upon
46 &c. too Mr. Justice Story enumerates the following
tassee II cassB unQuestionaaly falling within the
jurisdiction of the admiralty conrta, VIZ; Assault
damage [ss they are technically caed), sucn Illegal
Ddzues, OF depcedations On property; Illegal dis
samn,only called possessory suits: Of seizure
under municipal authority for supposed breaches Of
ssEnus other prohibitory lawe and cares of s.v-
Z. In the case Of the schooner Tlton, S
a,.cn 4e5, It was sid By the same learned
eaps ~ s sither n pctssory % s1ts so tn <eS p tss
sa. 70 e enforced o. they aie po,.ess6Ty suits to
~ he'd by the same learned judge IN De1.oris vH.
Bot ID Ganson- 398 And 1t Is fundamental prin-
apse thst admiralty has jurisdiction Of pedtory
&c. e7s.
Concluding then, that this is
PRorEK CASE FOE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION,
The question L. Does the case made entitle the libel
ants to the relief prayed to any relief in the prem
~ The artt point msde By TIE nbeants is that
e.! upon this vessel by the City OF Chicago, and
aoca sod because not Lid with the assent Of Congress-
hadted by the Constitution oi the United states7
Is Etlknoxn historical fact that neariy al Eu-
toAn States and diverz free cea and ports were in
Their parts in proportion to their tonnage. And this
NJ what w1s known to the maritime aud commercial
so9d It the time Of the adophon of the Constitution
e tax or duty Of tonnsge- The intention of
0e Trainers o1 the Constitution not only to maze
some1ce free between thu Statea but to roihit the
nsss sss' asa@ IN ans manner Of their own WI Or g
~ defined to be =" duty levied on vessel accord-
~ 70 hs tonnage Or caci.y, without roferenee to
u taaruneat Of navigation. and not .a1 upon the
laore'tF Of citizen Of the State" The duty Of ton
aSe which the Constitution Of the United States pro-
aseo tie States from lerying any duty Or tar On
2ap, such, without regard to the residence Of her
oanef. whittier it he n1ed upon its whole tom
asSe o. sum to be asccrtaioed ty comparing the
Amount of tonnage with the ratio Of duty. When
eah y m instrument Of commerce, Ia required 70
Hy aut5 Is condition to her being allowed to enter
hs ston her tonnage her ro2erty or rs license to
- Ss1 oaces1 Or csew.-Gl:sboEs Ogden Wheat, l
~, tsssffnger Cases. How 49,; Steamship Com
Cs4, T, y Wall oln |
Ihs tax does przpor to be levied upon this ves-
scco-dsng to her tonnage. but according her val
~ .o u property II is tax upon this ship part
~ .e h1.ose property Of the City Of Chicago, she be-
ing oHned aod registered here This .a1 il rot like
t&saee ot trading taking shelter in this port but
H. ns mp =. Pr9psry T snne to tar .a t1is city,
hG4oa- a. other property Ct tue State il taxed has
~ frequently sIs ues-d by the Surreme Court Of
~'' o0.seo S:ctes, And
THr POWER UNIFORMLY CONCEDED.
= e 70 Passenger csses, How, 4U2 the Court said
= ssats cannot regulate foreign commerce. but it !
~ 81 ship or otlsr vessel used IN commerce the
~ - - otaer ropest: own:d hy lsa citizens" So in
esn eeats aonn:ee cases, II Wall.ce II. the conrt
1: Bur SHIPS and vessels owned by iadiy7duals |
aesong1ng to the commercial MARINE ere regarded
pirate property Of their ownesH, and not a. the
~ oaerts or nears Of The Federal Government. |
I
,.a Tue taxing power Of the States, they not
saaofsTu from the operation Of 1hst power by auy |
~ aSs g OF tnpaied prohibition contained in the Fed
~ constuti"n- Argument, therefore, to show TINT
ms5 be taxed other property belonging to the
Il. tai q she sate is hardly Necessary, - the opro
~ Is indetensibe in principle, contrary to the
ss received opinion, and is wholly unsupported
- .uF 1adtdA determination Direct adjudicatiou to
<eP3on that proposition is not to be found IN the
Decisions Of this court, but there seyeral
80 WHICH concede thai Euch tax. ii levied By |
r. *ur1d be legal aad doub. is entertained that
: ssenseastcn e Il properly NADIA
A*1a lev1sd ~ State upon ships and vessels |
- y the citizens Of the Safe property, based
+. hc4aon Ct the property, not within
Ao9 61on Of the Constitution. bat It IL equally
H. %oa undeniatle that taxes leyied by State upon
ma Vessels zs instruments Of commsrce acd
Are within that clause Of the instrument
psoe1its the States from 1evying any duty Of
\ e@s&e @ without the consent Of Congress; aud
= A&-6n 10 difference whether thA sh!ps ,
= n ~ seasels taxed belong to the citizen
as safs which levIes the ta1 the citizens OF
sTat@ nt@te n the prohibition j. general withdrawing
u from the States the power to LAY any duty
ut q Congress-
b. annual LAKES upon property IN ships snd vessels
eoassaoalC lid, and their validity wss nerer |