The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-08-24

bearing on the subject Is that OF the SUI
preme Court OF the United States in Patter-
son Us. State OF Kentucky, reported In
Albany Lao Journal, February %, 1879,
page 1855. The only question In that case
was whether State may provide for the
inspection Of Illuminating oil patented by
the Government,
AND NAY PROHIBIT THE SALE
OF any that will not stand the prescribed test.
IL was held that the prohibition was police
regulation within the power OF the State.
That case, therefore, did not call for any de-
clsion OF the precise point involved here.
But Mr.. Justice Holland, who delivered the
opinion OF the Court, drew very just dis
tlnctiOn between the right OF property in
the physical substance, which is the fruit OF
a discovery or invention, and right in the
discovery or invention itself. The right 10
sell the oil itself Is not derived from the pat
ent, but exists independent OF it. The right
which We patent primarily secures Is the
exclusive right in the discovery or inven-
tion, which is an incorporeal right. The
enjoyment OF that right may be secured and
protected by the Federal Government
against all hostile State legislation, but the
tangible property which comes into exist
not beyond the control, as TO its use, of State
legislation simply because the inventor ac-
quires monopoly IN the discovery. APP
plying these principles to the present case,
the paentee has the exclusive right to use
or sell the "Singer sewing-mschipas." No
one has the right to use the product OF his
labors except with bis consent. He has a
monopoly in the invention, and this is the
sole operation and effect OF the patent.
But this does not prevent the States in the
exercise Of their just powers OF taxation
from taxing the business OF selling the ma
chine which is the subject Of the invention.
III the State attempts by system Of hostile
and discriminating legislation to destroy
the entire value or use OF the discovery or
invention, very different question would
then be presented. But so long as the tax
alton imposed is Just and reasonable, and
accords with the general burdens imposed
upon like subjects OF taxation, there will
be no Just ground OF complaint. AS was
said by Chancellor Kent in Livingston Us.
Van IngeD, 8 johnson, Rep. 5S2, that spe-
ces OF property must likewise be SUBJ
ject to taxation and 10 the payment OF
debts as other personal property. The ma
tional power will be fully satisfied il the
property created by patent be for the given
time enjoyed and used exclusively, so far
as under the policy OF the several States the
property shall be deemed tit for tOlerati0n
and use. There Is no need OF giving this
power any broader construction IN order to
attain the end for which il was granted
which was to reward the benehcent efforts
Of genius and 10 encourage the useful arts.
Under the Virginia statutes il is not pre-
tended there is any discrimination against
patentees residing in this or other
States, or against their assigners. The
tax is imposed equally upon the sale
OF all articles or machines manufac-
tured in this or other States and Territories,
whether patented or not and no complaint
is made that the tax is burdensOme or Op-
pressive. Ii was said by the Attorney Gen
eral in the argument here that the patent
granted to the inventor OF the " Singer
sewing machine" had expired, and had not
been renewed by Congress. Ii this be so,
as no doubt it is, there can be no pretencO
or claim OF right in the present company to
the exclusive use or sale Of the machines, or
to an exemption from taxation by the State.
And lastly, il is claimed that the statute un-
der which the defendant was convicted is in
conflict with the power vested in Congress
States, and is therefore unconstitutional and
void. The learned counsel for the defend
ant laid no particular stress upon this point
and clearly attached no great importance to
it. The Singer Manufacturing Company,
as far as appears, paid the tax imposed on
resident merchants without objection OF
protest, and was only licensed as such. Un-
der this license it claims the right to sell its
machines in any part Of the State, and this
whole controversy grows out OF the asser
ton OF that right. Upon the trial in the
| County Court its claim for exemption was
based upon two grounds. First, that the
company,
HAVING TAKEN OUT 4 MERCHANTS LICENSE,
had the right under it to sell by its agents ir
the county OF Henrico or elsewhere; and
secondly, that as assigner OF the patentet
it could sell independently OF any restrlc'
tions or limitations imposed by the laws Oi
the State. 1t does not appear that any ques
| ton was raised as TO the cODstitutiOnality Oi
the tax in other respects, or that the plead
| ings or evidence were framed with reference
to the point now presented in the argu
ment. That point seems to have been an
observation-disclosures raised in the Circuit
Court and now renewed in this court
| Without entering into any detailed argu
ment on the subject, we think there is M
Lust ground for saying that any dlscrimina
lion is made by the statutes OF this Stat'
against the products or citizens OF oihel
States. AS was said by the Supreme Cour
| OF the United States in WOrdruff Us. Par
ham, s Wallace, 140, there is no attempt
TO discriminate iniuriously against the pro
ducts Of other States or the rights OF thel
citizens, and the law is not, therefore, al
attempt to fetter commerce among the
States or to deprive the citizen:
OF other States OF any privilege o.
immunity possessed by resident citizens
For whether the goods be manufactured
here or manufactured abroad, their sail
without license is equally prohibited, ant
the same tax Is to be paid in each case fo
the privilege OF selling. 1t is very tru'
that the 46th section contains an exception
In favor OF resident manufacturers. Blu
this exception is not founded upon any idet
OF discriminating against nonresident man
ufacturers, but upon the policy OF boidins
out inducements to the investment OF capi
tai and the employment OF labor in tina
branch of business. When we consider
| the practice, energy, and skill, so necessar!
| i'm all the various processes required for th'
production OF manufactured articles, th'
great outlay OF capital and labor necessary
the accessions they bring to the wealth ant
power OF q community. and the taxes I'M
posed upon the property employed in tha
| branch Of business, 1t is not at alb Surprisin:
that many Of the States have allowed eyemp
tions from taxation upon the Article whilst !
| is in the hands of the manufactures, Ii nigh
with as much propriety be contended tha
exemptions in favor of literary and beneyo
lent associations constitute unjust discrimi
nations against non-residents II the resi-
dent manufacturer pays no tax upon tn
sale OF has fabric. he pays more than al