The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-07-15
THE DRUMMER TAX.

AS there is no little being said at this timt
about the drummer's tax of this state, ant
as large class Of people, commercial tray
elers ard merchsntsare directly interested il
this question, we propose to have a few
words to soy about it this morning. W.
notice that an idea begins to prevail that TIT
law cannot be enforced because the supreme
court Of the United States has decided that
i! was unconstitutional. This is not the
case. The United s ates supreme court has
made no auch decision, but on the contrary,
there is decision Of this court Just to the
contrary. Newspapers are presumed to know
whereof they speak when they make
statements. and they certainly ought to be
we'll posted when they publish information
for the guidance Of people, especially If a
reliance upon that information will end in
trouble. If it be incorrect On this drum
mer tax one Of our exchanges no later than
yesterday asserted positively that the tax
c'uld not DO collected, as the law had been
decided unconstitutional by the supreme
court Of the United States, and 1t published
a telegram from ST. Louis house 10 Its agent
not TO take out q license, as the United
States supreme court had decided that it was
unconstitutional for any state to charge a
license of q drummer. Not content with thus
misleading the people, and possibly thereby
getting some good man into trouble, it must
pour forth the walls Of its wrath upon the
heal Of Governor Roberts and say many I'M
pleasant and uncalled fer things about him
preferring charges and making statement,
against him that would not wash, for they
are without foundation aud unsupported by
any fact. But VIC will speak Of these charge:
aud statements further on. Tho facts Of The
case about this decision Of the supreme cour
Of tho United States ale as follows: 1t wa.
the case of j. I. Webber plaintiff Ia error
vs. tho state of Virginia. Wsbber was .
salesman for tho Singer sewing mschin,
company aud was arrested for selling good.
without license. Tho law of Virgins
70 I'd that "the agent for the sale of articles
manufactured in other states, mus,
first obtain license to sell
taem, while the agent for tho
sale Of articles manufactured In the state Of
Virginia, If acting for the manufactures
was not required 10 take on,
a lcense.' This was clearly in
conflict with the constitutional provision rels.
tive to tho interstate commerce and tho su.
preme court Of the United State, on an.
peal applying i.s decision to every state In the
union having similar law. But the drum.
mer tax law Of Texas Is not a similar law.
Ia Virginia the law exempted tho homo man.
utscsuIer, the Texas manufacturer and homo
merchant 10 taxed just the same as tho man.
ufsc'urcr and the rnorchan! Of another s,.,o.
and this makes Zig diffsrence-such q dif.
ference that the law Of Texas 10 not uucon,
ssitusiou, for the court long ago tho suprOmc
court Of sh' United State, wo mean do.
ciied that where q state made no dis,inc,lon
between lie own citizens and tho citizen, ot
Other states In the matter OF lie license IA,
i had q right to levy such Ia. and could
force collection. Newspapers ,ha. were IL.
norans Of this difference between the law Of
Texas aud tho law Of Virginia and did No,
know cf the supreme courts Interpretation
OF the constitution, ought not TO have pre.
sumcd 10 give advice and information 10 IN,
public. We do not presume 10 pass mon
the conssisutionsli,y Of this law of Ters,
but NO can assure oil commercial ,rsy.l,n
merchants and other persons interested, ,b.,
The decision OF the United States sup,eme
court In the Virginia c.,.
does NOT touch The drumms,
saz lawof Tszsa or aasc. Il in ,bs l....'