Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-07-18
LIGHT UNDERWEAR,
THE COTTON. TAX.
eaTIE -'...f - ..-a -f-'t -''
It's COnstitutiOnality AmrIRed By The
United States Supreme COurt-Dects.
ION OF the Nashville Test case.

9
United States Supreme COurt-Dects4 !
ion OF the Nashville Test case. -.J
On Wednesday last in the United States |
Supreme Court, the following opinions
were given: 1888 80 10
Nos. Z and Ill. Andrew Hamilton
ct al. vs.. joseph K. Dilnn, in error 10 the
Circuit Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee. IL. Samuel McClelland ct al!
vs. the Uuited States-Appeal from tie
Court Of Claims. Mr.. Justice Bradley de-
iivered the opinion Of the Court.
This was an action Of assunpsit, brought
by the plaintiffs in error agaiIsrthe Defend
ant in error, to recover a-ehATge or bonus Of
four cents per pound paid by The plaintiffs
to The, defendant as surveyor of the, port Of
Nashville, Tenn, from August, 1863 to
July 1864, for permits TO purchase and ship
TO the loyal States certain lots Of cotton,
amounting to over 100000 pounds. This
payment was one Of the fees or charges rel
duired by the regulations ,Of,the. Treasury
Department to be made as q condition Of
carving on the said trade between those
portions Of the insITI ectionary States With
In the lines Of occupation Of the Union
forces and the loysl States. By the bin Of
exceptions il appears to have been admitted
Dll LAu Il LA2eLAA1 A3aNAA-AshAAN ellis
surveyor 81. Of g. Customs at Nashville
during. the period in question: and
was the only person that oOnld
grant the necessary permits, and that the
plaintiffs had in their possession, as ORneIs
or factors, various lots Of cotton, specified
in the bill Of exceptions, which had been
purchased IN pursuance q the decree Of the
President and the regul4tiOus Of the SeeTe-
IL - I.s.F a.rv,v-1. n.af.
they applied TO the defendant for permits
TO shio and transport said cotton from
Nashville 70 a LOYAL State, and that the de-
PENDANT, in Obedience % said regulations
and instructions, refusedtO grant sUch per-
mits except on payment Of the four cents
per pound. It is also admitted that the
regulations were we'll and publicly known
| at Nashville, and directed seiZure and con-
/ fiscaliOn Of all cotton shipped without such
/ Payment or permit and that the plaintiff
made no formal protest against the payment
| of the charge but paid the same, and that
the same was paid By the defendant into the
| Treasury Of the United States before the
/ commencement of this action. 1t was also
/ admitted that during said period Nashville
| was within the lines Of military occupation
/ OF the United States. The plaintiff
then put in evidence the Treasury
\ regulations to force at the time OF
Tl1e shipment Of the cotton in question.
These regulations prohibited the trans
/ pOrtaiiUn If goods or merchandise TO or
| from any State OF part Of Stale IN insur-
4 TecliOn except under permits, certificates
4 and Clearances, as provided therein; andthe
1 surveyors Of the customs at Nashville and
other places were designated as The officers
\ to grant such permits. Authority to
purchase and transport goods was 20 be
4 granted only TO those who should make Tie
L prescribed affidavit and enter into bond 70
j nav al fees required by the regulations
l and no permit VAS 10 be granted for such
/ purchase and transportation except upon
1 The payment Of such fees or the giving Of a
bond to secure the same. The fees referred
/ to and appended to the regulations, and
making part thereof, consisted Of various
items and charges TO be paid, and, among
others, ,'FOF each permit 70 purchase cotton
in an insuTTeCtiOnary district and TO trans
| port the same 70 q loyal Stale, per pound,
four cents This IS the fee Or-cha-ge which
was paid for the permit TO purchase aud
| transport the cotton in question AMI which
| is sought to be recovered The plaintiffs
insisted, and requested the court 10 charge
substantially as follows. 49,.
That this exactiUn was Illegal and void;
that II was essentially tax and not author
fzed by any act Of Congress, which alone
has the power TO impose taxes; that even il
It we've authorized by law, the. Law itselL
was TO that extent Unconstitutional and
I void, and that under the circumstances and
state Of facts agreed upon by the parties,
the payment was involuntary and no pro-
test was necessary 10 entitle the plain
II tihs TO recover back the money thus He
gally exacted.
The Court refused TO charge IS requested
by the plaintiffs, but charged as follows;
Il /. That the act Of JaIy Is, 1851, enti-
tiled Gan act further to provide for the col
Election Of duties on imports and for other
lIpurpOses, - conferred power upon the Sec
l.ietary Of the Treasury to authorize the ex-
actions mentioned in said plaintiffs declar-
Ilation. - s--
/ ,. That whether said act Of July IS,
ll1S5l, conferred such power or not, the &C
l.tion of the SecEetsry II the Treasury in
llimposing aud OF the defendant in making
/ isaid exacliOus was ratified and made valid
by the act Of July 2, 1864, entitled San act
| In addition to the several acts concerning
commercial intercourse between loyal and
i insurrectiOuaIy States, and to provide for
| the collection Of captured and abandoned
| property, and the prevention Of frauds in
! States declared in Instruction"
/ 8. That plaintiffs could NOT maintain
/ action to recover back said eXsctiOns, even
/ If they had be0nillsgal, for want Of E.ay-
! inc protested against them ~ Tie time OF
! payment. .---,.s
! 70 this charge exeeStions were taken,
| and We are called E.pOn 10 decide as to the
CORRECTNESS Of these propositions.
! ] There can be 10 question that the cOndl-
! tion requiring the payment Of four cents
| per pound for a permit To purchase cotton
/ Eu. and transport il from the Instruction
| kry States during the civil war, was COM
! petent TO the war power Of the United
\ States government to impose. The war
! was A public One.- The government, in
] prosecuting it, had at least all the rights
| which any belligerent power has when
/ Prosecuting public war. That war was
| itself a suspension Of commercial inter
! course between the opposing sections Ofthe
| country. No cotton or other merchandise
! eouId be lawfully purchased in the insur-
| ractiouary States and transported to the
| Inval States without the consent of the
| Government. II such course Of dealing
we're to be permitted at all, it would ne
| eessarily be upon such conditions as the
| Government chose to prescribe. The war
uoWer vested in the Government implied
AIN this without any specific mention Of it
! ih the constitution. . E. -. .s
In a ngopinion the court reviews the
questions presented, aud atiirms the rul-
| ihcs. and Judgment Of the court below.
| The second case IS decided by the iudg-
ment in the first.