The clarion., 1886-04-21
The 1rummers' Bi /.


In discussing the bill now pending be-
fore Congress providing that residents
OF each State and Territory may within
the other States and Territories, solicit
from dealers or merchants orders for
goods and merchandise by sample, cata-
logue, card, price.list, description or
other representation without payment of
ny license or mercantile tax" the ST.
Louis Giobe Democrat takes the ground
that the MEASURE is wholly free from
Constitutional objection and SO il
would seem to be, from the unusual
speed with which it passed the House.
The argument Of the Globe Democrat
is as follows:
The main question with regard 10 this
bill, and the only point upon which any
plausible objection can be made to il, is
that Of the right Of the Federal law
making power To assume exclusive iaris-
dIctiOn over "a matter 50 closely related
10 the government OF local affairs. In
ense, the authority of q State 10 tax bu7i-
ness interests ard business men within it,
own b0rgier- Is paramount and lnccndi-
tioosl but that authority is subject at the
same time 10 certain weli-detined aud
substantial distinctions, involving power
granted ~ Congress ioF the conservation
and promotion of the national welfare
The Constitution declares Ia plain terms
that Congress shall have power to regu-
late commerce with foreign nations and
among the several States. and with tb,
ffa5g fFll , a.. -
has several times decided that this implies
exclusive jurisdiction, and is in effect a
prohibition OF State action In that djrec-
ton Ii sale effected by drummer
were made through the medium of cata-
logues and samples sent by mail from a
wholesale house in St. Louis, for example.
70 a retail dealer in Texas, the transaction
would surely come within the meaning OF
interstate commerce; aud It is impossible
90 see how the matter can have anv differ
ent meaning simply because The samples
are taken 10 Texas in trunk and person
| Ally exhibited 10 the dealer. In either
case, the transaction does not really take
place IN the State OF the purchaser the
agent only represents goods and nam. 1
| prices, and memorandum OF the order i.
returned To -. Louis, where the trade Is
| actually nsummaied. This is manifest,
| such proceeding a. Congress has righl
| to iegislate upon in an EXCLUSIVE, wav, ol
| he constitutional grant Of authority as [,
| interstate commerce Is without any practi
cal significance
| In The case Of Welt0u ". State OF Mis-
'ouri It was held by the Supreme Cour
nat license tax required for the sale O
| goods amounts to tax upon the goods
nj, therefore, II IN conflict with the Con
| sututtOn so TAR a5 concerns goods trans
| ported AZ articles OF mmerce betweer
| tferent States. The term commerce. a
lefHed in this decision, "comprebeuds in
| tercourse Tor the purposes OF trade in an,
md all It's forms, including the transIorta
| ion. purchase, sale aud exchange of com
nodities between citizens Of differen
states; and the power to regulate i
embraces all the instruments by whicl
| such commerce NAV be conducted. 5,
.tr as some # these Instruments are con
| herned, and some objects which are loca
| IN their operation, il has been held tina
the States may provide regulat ons uni
| Congress acts with reference to them bu
where the subject to which the power ap
| plies IS national in its character, or o
such nature as to admit Of uniformity o
| regulation, the power is exclusively o
| state authority. In another aud late
Ease where the same point was invol veC
tnd the same decision made, Justice Brad
| = delivered a special opinion. in which i
was held that even here a license tax il
imposed equally upon residents and non
| residents IL is violation Of the Constitu
| ilon, inasmuch as it is in fact duty upor
importation from one State to another
under pretex Of uniform taxation.
We think that the precedtnts refer rec
to do not sdstain the conclusion that
State tax on travelling statesmen is moi
allowable because it is an occupation
tax ana not a tax on sales It would
seem to matter but little where mar
resides if he follows the occupation oi
privilege subject to the tax.
Ia the drummer's tax case now befor,
the Supreme Court, We believe that i
was not urged at the hearing that it wai
Objectionable, because it was regula
ton of inter State commerce; though
it was insisted, contrary to the views oi
the Globe Democrat, that Wrenn, tn,
PVl9OH "A4tst0u loI NioldtIOA OF tn
Mississippi Statute, was not salesman
but mere solicitor of orders which hi
principals were at liberty to reject j
they chose. In other words, that th'
sales were male in New Orleans and no
in Mississippi.
We rather incline 10 the opinion tha
the drummers should not be taxed ; bu
that matter should be settled by tn,
| States and not Inv the Conorass