Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1886-01-26
STATE TAKES ON COMMERCIAL
TOURISTS"

A very important case has just been de-
cided by the United States Supreme
Court, which involved the right OF q
State to lay Q tar on commercial travel
ers from other States. There are many
States, especially in the West and South,
where quite q revenue is derived from
the issuance Of license to "drummers."
In Nevada the revenue derived from this
source has been considerable, but, as we
understand the decision. it will hence
forth be ont of. The travelling men have
protested, but in vain, until at last this
test case was carried up to the Supreme
Court.
The facts were these: One Samuel A.
Walling, q drummer " for the firm Of
Cavanaugh 4 Co., liquor dealers, OF Chi
cago. was, in 1883, soliciting orders in
Grand Rapids for his firm. He had no
license from the State OF Michigan, and
was arrested and brought before the pc.
lice justice, convicted, fined and impris.
oned under q State law imposing q ts=
upon persons engaged in obtaining in
that State orders for liquor to be shipped
from any other State. The case was
taken up through the County and Su.
preme Courts of Michigan to the United
States Court, the decision in all cases
until the final one being against Walling.
The final decision topinion by Justice
Bradley holds "that a discriminating
tax imposed by a State operating to the
disadvantage of the products of other
States, when introduced into the first
mentioned State, is in effect a regulation
in restraint of among the
States, and as such is usurpation Of the
power conferred by the Constitution
upon the Congress OF the United States"
The State Of Michigan. the court says.
has a perfect right to discourage the sale
OF intoxicating liquors, but has no right
to discriminate against the citizens and
products of other States; the regulation
of interstate being q preroga.
tive Of Congress.
The question at issue did not involve
the desirableness Of liquor selling, re.
marks the New York Mail and Express,
and the decision is in no wsy a setback
to temperance. The goods in the case
might have been shoes or sheeting just as
well. The point elucidsted is hat no
State has a right to lay q discriminating
tax on the products or citizens of other
States. So far as appears by the decis.
ion. a tax may be levied ON all "drum.
mers " for liquor houses in and out Of the
State. The right to levy such a tax on
travellers for other sorts Of goods, whose
sale is not detrimental to public health or
morals. is not expressly denied in this
opinion. but such . denial seems to be
implicitly involved in the sentence
quoted.
The extension Of the protective tariff
principle to onmerce between the States
is OF course clearly unconstitutional. No
State has a right to build up its own in.
dustries at the expense of those of other
States by means of q tax upon the sale
within its borders Of goods made or pro.
duced in other States. The opinion of
the court has now made this perfectly
clear. and one of the annoysnces to which
commercial travellers have had to submit
Is thus done away with, so far as it can
be judicially. The enforcement of this
view Of the Constitution viii, however,
be very difficult.