The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-24
RAILROAD TRAVELLING AGENTs.
The county Court Decides They are
Not Subject 40 the DruEa'
mers' lax.

mers' lax.
The reporter made mention last week of an
important case on trial in the county court
and to-day gives Judge Burk's decision on
same. Messrs JEFF Thompson, P. Z. Rodgers,
J.R Merrifeld, ~ L. Hayden, j. A. VIII
son, D. @. Brady, Castor Masier, r. r.
Robins, 4. 5. Spear 7. d. Russell, Il, p
Hughes, S 0. Hemmeawsy, j, I. Hogan
and Other representatives of various railroad
lines, we're indicted under the drummers' tax
law, which has been thought 10 include
every solicitor of business. Il was of great
importance to the roads us an adverse de-
cision would have forced the payment Of Il
heavy annual tax
Nlsesrs. Morgan & Gibbs represented .he
foreign lines, And 'alr Foster, Of Denison,
the Missouri, Kansas ~ Texas aud Missouri
Pacific railroads. Very Ahie arguments
were made on tue proper construction OF ire
statute; and Messrs Morgan & Gibbs and
Foster reviewed the history of is passage to
show that lis enactment was in The interest
of WHOLESALE merchants at hone, and could
not have been intended for railrosd agents.
JUDGE BURKE's DECISION.
The State Of Texas VS. j. r Merriaeld, in
county court, Dallas county. The defendant
in this case was indicted by tbs grand jury of
Dallas county on the 10th day OF November,
1880, as a drummer and solicitor Of trade"
alleging that "ss such lie solicited business
and trade, and passengers md travel for the
Ohio d Mlssis,io railroad COu1aNV In DAl-
las county without tirst having paid the LAX
levied by Iaw upon said occupation OF drum
mer and solicitor Of tsSde etc, etc. The
defendant by attorney flies his motion TO
quash on the grounds, LIST. That the bill does
not charge any oiiense uader the statutes OF
the state. I'd. TnaJ the statute under which
the defendant stands charged is unconsti,u
tional aud void. This motion involves the
construction Of that portion Of Art. 1865
revised statutes, relating TO what is commons
ly denominated the "drummeTs' tax" This
article provides that "an annual occupation
tax Of Two hundred dollars shall BE-
collected from every commercial traveller,
drummer, salesman or solicitor of trade by
sample or otherwise, provided that such per
son shall not be required to pay the same if
the person. firm, or association of persons
represented by him, or for whom he is sole
iting trade shall have paid merchant oceu-
patton tax of $500" After adding other
provisions, il concludes by declaring that "a
merchant in the meaning of this act is any
person, firm, or association OF persons en-.
gagged in buying and selling goods, wares and
merchandise of any kind whatever" The
question then presents itself, Is the defen-
dant representative of such "person, firm,
or association of persons" as comes within
the meaning and intan. of the legislature,
and upon whom an occupation tax Of $500
has been levied? In u Texas, 402 Chief
Justice HemPhill, in speaking of the con-
structon TO DO given to statutes by tn
courts, says: That the intention of the legis-
lature Is TO be deduced from the whole and
every part Of a statute when com
pared together; that when the words
are not explicit the intention is to be collected
from the occasion and necessity OF the law
and from the mischief aud objsc.s and
remedy in view, and the intention is to De
presumed according 70 wha. Is cOnsonant to
reason aud good discretion"
In 10Th Texas 800 Judge Wheeler ssys:
Where words are very general it is the duty
Of courts 10 construe the acL with reference
to the history so as TO avoid aCsurdity and
give et5ct to the weI'gnown meaning and
intention"
What then was the true intention Of the
legslatura in imposing this tax? What is
the history of the act?