The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-08-26
ATURDAY IN MORNING. !. AUGUsT rs. 1876.


The following Is synopsis OF the decision
of the United States Supreme Court some
time ago rendered in the case OF James b.
Pace plaintiff in error, U.s. Rush Burgess,
Ecollector of internal revenue. In error to
the Circuit Court for the Eastern District OF
Virginia. The plaintiff In error brought
this suit to recover from the defendant
(who was collector Of internal, reyenueJ the
amount paid to defendant for .stampsnto be
affixed, and which were affixed pursuant to
law, to packages OF manufactured tobacco
intended for .exportation. The plaintiff
was manufacturer of tobacco in, Rich
tm0hd, Va, and the, payments were made
from the years 1869 to 1873, inclusive,
first under the act OF July 20, 1858
rs Stat, $50, and afterwards under
the act OF June 6; 1872 Q7 Stat, 254}. BY
the act of 1868 an excise tax OF lthirty-two
cents per pound was imposed on all man
.ufactured tobacco, except smoking tobacco,
on which the tax was sixteen cents per
pound; and penalties and riorieitures were
Imposed for removing the manufactured ar
liticle from the factory without being put in
proper packages, or without having the
proper stamps affixed thereon and cancelled,
to indicate the payment OF the tax and COM
piiance with the law. From these provi-
sions tobacco intended for eXportwas ex-
cepted, 1t being provided that such tobacco
might be removed without payment Of the
tax and without restriction as to the size OF,
the packages; but it was enacted that 80 all
tobacco and snuff intended for export, be-
fore being removed from the manuiactory,
| shall have affixed to- each, passage an en-
graved stamp indicatiye-oi Of such intention
to be provided and furnished to the several
collectors, as in the case OF other stamps,
and to be charged to them and accounted
| for in the same manners. and for. the eX-
pense attending the providing and afixing
such stamps, twenty-five cents for each
package so stamped should be paid to the
collector on making the entry for such
transportation" To facilitate the disposal
OF tobacco intended for expectation the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue was au-
thorized TO- designate and, establish at any
ports Of entry in the United States export
tobacco in bond, and to be used exclusively
for that purpose, and to be in charge OF an
internal revenue storekeeper, In which
4 warehouses tobacco intended for exporta-
tion might be kept in bond until actually
exported. The act of 1872 reduced the
charge for the stamps to ten cents, and pro-
vided for drawba Of the excise tax, il,
after being paid, the owner should
wish to export the article. The
plaintiffs contend that the charge
for the stamps required to he placed
on packages Of manufactured tobacco IN
tended for expectation was and'is duty or
exports, within the meaning Of that clause
in the Constitution OF the United States
which declares that "no tax or duty shal
be laid on articles exported from any State
But it is manifest that such was not its char
acter or object. The stamp was intended
for no other purpose than to, separate ano
identity the tobacco which the manufacturer
desired to export, and thereby, instead o.
taxing it, to relieve it from taxation to which
other tobacco was subjected. It is a mean:
devised to prevent fraud and secure thu
faithful carrying out Of the declared inten
with the tobacco so marked. The pay
ment OF twenty-five cents or OF ten cent
for the stamp used was no more
tax, on the export than was the fe'
for clearing the vessel in which it wa:
transported or for making out ant
certifying the manifest OF the cargo. lt bor
no proportion whatever to the quantity o
value Of the package on which it was affixed
These were unlimited, except by the dis
cretion OF the exporter, or the convenience
OF handling. The large amount paid To-
such stamps by the plaintiffs only show
that they. were carrying on an immens
business. The proper fees accruing in tn
due administration OF the laws and regula
tions necessary to be observed to protec
the Government from imposition and irau
! likely to be committed "tlnder pretenee
expectation are said to be in no sense dut
on expectation, but simply the 'compenSa
ton for services properly rendered. In
rule by which they are estimated may d
arbitrary, but such a rule may be more con
yenient and less onerous than any othe
4 which can be adopted. Affirmed. MI
Justice Bradley delivered the opinion.