The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-14
Bisaow on Eston 58s.

the same breath, ReutE2llZeS Itself. Gilt
when the inferior ferbids what his
| Superior permits, he only shows temecIty
and imDudence. The fat of the d@aai-
nant power will stand.
/ A private citizen must abide the con-
sequence of his acts; he is bound by the
natural and just i'm plicxtions from his
conduct He can not by his conduct
recognise himself as a party to a mar
/ rage or a partnership or agency and
then shirk the responsibility to others
who have acted on the assumption OF
such relation. He can not sell property
and afterwards set up claim in Ger~-
cation of his act OF sale.
! DeXtar or Maniy2 Cash 81.
! A party requesting service
or delivery of goods, can not
deny that he promised TO pay
/ for such service or property. One VINO
! has been defrauded and knows IL. can
not continue to deal with the guilty
party. on the basis of the transaction
| being valid, eyincing 2cqulscence, ana
afterwards repudiateit.
! The state like the king can do no
wrong. 1t is the great eAemplar OF JUS
tice and fair dealing. Two inconsistent
/ laws cannot operate at the same time.
| One gives way at once to the other. \
later law out of harmony with an ex-
isting statute repeats it. expressly, or
by implication. When an enactment
| trenches upon some rule of the Consti-
tuition or other fundamental law, 1t
never comes into force.
As Congress possesses the supreme
| legislative power, every act which IT
passes is an implied prohibition OF all
Inconsistent local legislation.
The latter can enact no law to prevent
what Congress permits. 1t cannot pro
vide for Furnishing as an ottense any act
which Congress has authorized. No
! form of Territorial legislation can make
that illegal which Congress has sane
toned. Hence, if prohibition. as a
primary object, is not within the cOmpe-
tency of the Territorial Legislature while
the present revenue law is in force,
prohibition by the Territory cannot be
enacted as means to compel compll-
ance with laws otherwise valid.
Judge Mclean, in the Passenger Case,
7 How. 4O8, said 1.-The police power of a
State cannot draw within its jurlsdic-
ton objects which lie beyond it.
There are many Federal and State
cases illustrating the exclusive nature
of the legislation of Congress and the
States in the domain of their res ectlve
Jurisdictions. In McCulloch vs. Mary
land q Wheat. 316) it was held that Goa
gress has power to incorporate a bank
as a means of exercising enumerated
powers of the general government;
that it may be chartered to serve as
fiscal agent; therefore no State has
power to tax 1t.
Dobbins VS.. Commissioner DO Pet.
495-447, 449) decides that State cannot
tax the salary of q revenue of1icer OF
the United States. So it was held IN
Collector VS. Day III Wall, lib 12O that
it was not competent for Congress TO
impose a tax on the salary of judicial
officer of a State. And in U. S. VS.. K.
r. Co. III Wall. 800, 327) that Congress
could not directly nor indirectly tax the
revenues of municipal corporation IN a
State.
In Fifeld vs. Close, Is Mich, 500, and
Tucker VS.. Potter, 35 Conn. As, it was
held that Congress could not require
the process of a State Court to bear
a revenue stamp.
In Gibbons VS.. Ogden 8, Wheat. 1, it
was held that under the power granted
to Congress "to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the
several States" it might provide for
registering and licensing vessels en-
gagged in the coasting trade, that Iii
cense,under such an'act confers the right,
so that the State of New York could not
bv any legislation exclude such vessels
from waters within her jurisdiction.
This power to regulate commerce was
held in the Passenger Cases e How. 2S3)
so absolute and supreme that a State
has no power to impose taxes upon
alien passengers arriving IL her ports.
U. S. VS.. Ross, 90, .. S. 2Sl.
This same power in Congress was held
in Brown VS.. Maryland (12 Wheat.) to
include license to sell the imported
commodity in the condition in which it
was imported. This right OF the i'm
porter so derived is wholly beyond all
the powers of the State. The police
power of the State cannot reach it, nor
the taxing power.
III. The language of the revenue
law of Congress imports license to the
taxpayer to engage in the business
which is the subject of the tax:
This is the language OF the law: mo
person shall engage in or carry on any
trade or business hereinafter mentioned
until he has paid a special tax therefor
as hereinafter provided.
Retail dealers in liquor (deriyed) are
mentioned. They are forbidden to carry
ON the business uuIll IIIcy Aaf0 paw
the tax. This implies that after they have
paid the tax, and for the period it is re-
quired to be prepaid, il may be carried
on. There might be question whether
Congress could authorize business in
State merely to tax it, if the State for
| bids it.
When the revenue law was first en-
acted by Congress it contained pro
vision thai no license provided Tor IN IT.,
should, if granted, be construed to
authorize any business within any
State or Territory prohibited by the
laws thereof. or so as to prevent the tax
alton of the business by the State.
The revision of this law contains a
modification of this provision. 1t IS
now confined to the States. CONGRESS
has repealed the provision as to Terri
tories. 1t has thus said, we recall the
qualification that the payment OF the
tax shall not be construed to authorize
the business in the Territories.
Congress had the power to- authorize I
the business in the Territories, and by,
the language of the law it has eynced
an intention to do so.
In multitude of instances right OF
mower is deduced from such negative
! R,.o,-;s;ons One notable example Is