Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-28
THE DRUMMERs' LICENSE.

. THE DRUMHERlS' LICENSE.
HALFWAY HOUSE, WHIT, TEX, April "A.
To the Editor Of tho Gazette.
Before me Is an article. clipped from Miehi
, gan paper, purporting TO be a decision OF thi
United States court, which viii copy entire
committees from tbereycrai travellers asso
Citations have been making arguments before
the commerce committee OF the senate anc
hoafe IN support Of bills that have been intro
dueed By Senator Logan and Representative
Beach 70 prohibit the Assessment OF taxes in
the shape Of license fees upon them
By the states aud cities IN which they
iseli by sample. There was de-
cieiou In the supreme court 70 day which
caused them all 10 pack lnp and take The fret
train for home. The state OF Michigan I'm
poses tax Of 500 year upon dTummers. a
traveller from a vhisky house In Chicago
brought snit In the courts OF that state 20 so
cure a return OF the fec he paid Tho case was
| decided against him 81 each Of the state courts
In which II was tried, and he brought It 10 the
( United states supfeme court upon a writ of
error. This court to-day reversed the decision
and decided thai al such laws were unconsti.
I tutional, as congress alone had power to regu
I late iniers ate commerce. The decision APP
piles to every state and territory, and the
drummer viii no longer be compelled to pay
license in other states than those in which they
reside"
| The above interests all commercial travellers,
and reflects on those states that stIll persist
| 10 collecting this taX. II we are compelled to
I pay license in the state OF Texas or any other
state. which is unconstitutional, and so decided
by the United States supreme court we would
like TO know II, IA many OF us have started on
our respective trips, believing the above would
exempt US from this tax. We appeal 10 THE
GAZETTE for more light, knowing you 10 be a
friend 10 the drummer and the people who in
directly pay this tax Yours truly,
p. J.. RooDE,
General Agent for ii Il. I5ucklin Co., Chicago.
The decision of the supreme court in
the Michigan case covers al like cases in
regard TO the taxing Of drummers. There
Is this difference, however, between the
license law of Michigan and that of
Texas: The Michigan law imposed tax
only on the representatives Of foreign
business houses soliciting orders by sam
pie in that state, and exempted represen-
tatives Of native Industries or business
enterprises. This was clearly law dis
eliminating against the commerce of
foreign states, and is held TO be unconsti-
tutlonal under that clause OF the constitu-
ton which prohibits state from laying
any import or duty on imports or exports,
except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing its inspection laws. The
Texas law makes no distinction between
the agents or representatives of home and
foreign houses, but taxes them all alike.
It might be held that this is a necessary
tax, and not discrimination. The Mich
igan decision does not fully cover the
Texas law.
A decision which seems to cover the
ground has been written by Justice Field,
who states the opinion Of the supreme
court in these Words "where the bust
ness or occupation consists in the sale of
goods, the license tax required for It's
pursuit Is 10 effect tax on the goods
themselves. II such tax be within the
power Of state TO levy, 1t matters not
whether It be raised directly from the
goods, or indirectly from them through
the license TO the dealer; but II such tax
conflicts with any power vested in con.
gress by the constitution OF the United
States, 1t will not be any the less invalid
because enforced through the form of a
personal lie nse." Another opinion, de-
liyered by Justice Bradley, seems to
cover all cases where, as In this state,
there is no discrimination, but tax
levied equally upon all, "a But
am further OF opinion that
the act is in violation of the
commercial clause of the constitution,
which eonfers upon congress the power
TO regulate commerce among the several
states; and it would be so, although It
imposed upon residents the same burden
for selling goods by sample as 1t imposed
on the non-residents 4"
II is nowhere denied that state may
tax representatives Of resident houses, as
such taxation does not interfere with In.
terstate commerce.
The best thing for Mr. Roode to do is
to consult a good lawyer before making
the attempt to sell goods wlthouta license
In Texas, and follow his advice THE GA.
zErrE Is of the opinion thar the tax is in. !
valid but Tar GAZETTE does not set up |
as an exponent OF constitutional law, and,
however much It may oppose the tax,
would not venture advice that might be 1
misleading.