Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1883-02-09
TOBACCO INSPECTION.
4 Decision of the Supreme Court Upon
the C0nStitntiOna.ity of the Law.

a DOSAShpu VI thC supreme SOuEt pun
the COnstitationa.ity of the Law
The Supreme Court of the United States at
Washington on Monday affirmed the judgement
of the Court of Appeals Of Maryland in the case
OF Henry A. Turner, plaintiff in error, vs. tbs
State OF Maryland, in which the constitution
atty OF certain provisions of thu tobacco inspec-
ton laws of the State WAS involved. Turner
was indicted in the Criminal Court of Balti-
more. The fist count alleged iaat Turner
packed in a hsgshsad tobacco grown by him
on farm belonging to him in Charles county,
in Maryland, and marked the hoeshead with
his tull name and bis place of residence in said
cosuty, and shipped il to the city of Baltimore:
that it was not delivered at any tobacco ware
house in said city under the management or
control of any inspector of tobacco appointed
Tor said warehouse by the Governor of the
State OF Maryland, under the constitution and
avs OF said State, nor to any one OF said inspec-
tors of tobacco, nor to any one acting under
he authority of any one of said Inspectors OF
tobacco, to be weig he'd, pissed or Marked and
t Was not weighed passed or marked by an,
such Inspector of tobacco, nor bY any person
,cting under the authority OF any one of said
laspectors of tobacco; but that the said Turner
exported it from said city TO Bremen, in Ger
many, without having procured il TO be weigh
49, P-SS~N "hu AVu suVu iuspSttOt
OF tobacco, or by any person acting under the
| authority of any one of said inspectors of to-
oacco. The second count contained the sam.
allegations and the further averment that the
SAID turner did not prior TO said expectation,
pay or cause to be paid any sum Of money due
or outage, or for storage, TO the State of Mary
and, TO any such inspector Of tobacco or tc
| my other person having authority 10 receive
the same, although certain sums of money were
ius and payable by him to said State for out
tge and storage on said hogshead.
1t was claimed by Turner that the statutory
provisions, the validity Of which he denied,
we're inspection laws within the meaning of
clause OF section 10 Of article / of the con-
'ttution of the United States, which clause is
| IS follows: mo State shall, without the con
sent of the Congress lay any impests or duties
bn imports or exports, except what may be ALSO
utely necessary for executing its inspection
avs; and the net proceeds OF all duties and
mposts laid by any State on imports or ex-
ports shall be for the use of the treasury of the
United States; and all such laws shall he suo.
lect to the revision and control of the Goa
gressn
After referring in detail to the sections OF
the inspection laws involved, the court says
The act OF 1854 requires the inspector to eK
'mine the hogshead TO ascertain whether it is
he tobacco itself by ssmpling the contents
md when this has been done and the weight
,scertained, the hogshesd is passed. In regard
o the addition made b., the act of 1870. ch ,p-
er 29l, TO section 1 of &C; Of 1861 the grower
VI purchaser of tobacco packed in the county
,r neighsorhood where il is grova is permit
led 10 export the same without having the
logshead opened for inspection by simplRg its
contents, but the act requires such hDgsheai 10
l % l. al. a
owner it is made liable TO the charge Of outage
3 in other cases. and any one violating its
provisions is sihje ted to The penalty imposed
ny section Al Of the act Of 1854 The act OF
1870. in thus permitting the grower o. pa-ch.
'seF OF tobacco picked ia the couutr or lrh-
oerhood wh~rs IL is grown 10 export the same
without having the tgsheais spenet fhr in
;pec;lo1, does not d.sp.ss- with .ny Other re-
quiren-nt Of the act of 1854 in regard TO la
spec;ion. When the words 'saca ,ob tcco 50 cx-
ported or carrie out OF this State without in.
'pecilon' are read in connection with the pre-
oedins senteace, whrl permits tn, grover or
purchaser, 10 export sach Go5teco without
having the SINE opened for Inspection. is is
clear that the isr'u without Inspector refers
10 inspection b. speaiaS The no ssh,si aud
sampling the contents
The resnli is, thai all thu; the At a. 1870
ines IN regard to grower or parvh ser of to-
osceo raised in Maryland. who packs III sans
hagsheais ia the couaty or neighbarhooi
where such ,ob,cro Is grown aud whs exports
1t or carries it GU, OF the State, Is II dispeas.
sith the opening Of such hoyshesds Got iuspee.
ton.
The plaintiff IN error cont.n3ed ths; section
Ill OF the act of s3i, as rr~en ,cGed av the act
of 1870, vio!aies iks constitution Of the un;ed
States. because { titis a rege.,son q. later
lat n g4r,tx L. -
a duiy on exports, and does asi fall within the
class of laws knowa ss inspection laws becsgsr
the provision enac's that The ioesrro 10 which
u refers neei no, be opeaed Tor in speCtisn ,
said section, even though il Is Inspection
statute, disSriminstss AZ ainsi th, nos-gesiisn
buyer and N ,npfaeiarer Of leaf tobacco. and 10
favor Of the State buyer aai manufacturer, in
imposing ourdensome regulations ON tobacco
INTENDED for export. aud iayiss a tax Of =; least
Two dollars hagshesd on such tobacco whea
exported, while tobasco manufactured
within the State is free from such regulations
aud such tax, and thus IL discri inmates
sgsi ST interstate and foreign commerce in to-
baeco, and 10 favor Of local manufacturers aud
The iaternal trade of The State; 3 said section
discriminstes between diferest CLASSES Of ex-
porters of tobacco ia that IL permits tobacco
exported by persons who pack j, 10 the coanty
or neighhoThood where il is grown, 10 be ex-
ported wh.n marked with the full name and
residence Of the owner, without inspection
other than the examination of the ouisides of
the hogshsais, while exporters OF another class
must have the contents OF their hogshesis sub
jsctsd to examination
''The MARYLAND court held that the charge
Of outage in this case was an inspection duty,
within the meaning of the constitution; thar
the State had the power TO prescribe the dimrs-
sons Of the hogsheld 10 which tobacco raised
in Maryland shall be packed and 10 require
such hogsbe,d to be delivered at one OF the
State tobacco warehouses in order tina, the in
speetors may ascertain whether IL conforms tn
the requirements OF the lsx; and that the
charge of outage. TO reimburse the State for
the expenses thereby Incurred. aud in consider
alton Of storage OF the hogshesd, is in the IA
,nrs Of an inspection duty. withia the meaning
Of the constitution" The Supreme Court of
the United States sastains this view, and adds:
THE general provision of the Maryland
statute is, that i; shall not be lawful TO carry
out Of the State. in hogshe IDS. anr tobacco
raised 10 the State except in hogsheads which
shall have been inspected, passed aud marked
agreeable 10 the provision OF the act. The
necessity existing for subjectng the hogshead
to inspection under all circumstances, a charge
Of some kind was proper for outage that is, a
charge payable on Withdrawing the hogshead,
for labor connected with receiving and hand
ling it and doing the other things above men
toned. Such charge appears 10 be a charge
for services properly rendered
''The abpve views cover the objection msds
that the Maryland law discrimuaies between
different classes of exporters of tobacco. and
favors the person who packs it for expectation
in the county or neghborhood where it is
grown, as against other exporters. Whatever
discrimination in this respect or in respect o.
purchaser for expectation, before referred to,
results from any provisions of the law, il II
discrimination which, we think, the State has
a right to mike, resulting. as it does, wholly
from regulations which affect the article before
it has become an aciicle OF commerce, and
which attach to it as and when it is grown and
before it is packed or sold The tobacco is
grown with these regulation in fierce, and the