The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-10-30
UNITED STATES SUPREME COUIr.
The Texas Drummer Case Decided In Favor
Of the Commercial Traveller.

WAsHrHeroS. Oct. 29.-In an opinion render
ed by Justice Bradley in the drummer-tax case
of VIM. G.. Asher Vs. the State OF Texas. the
Supreme Court Of the United States to-day de-
clared uneonsti,utiona all avs imposing q Ii
cense tax on commercial travellers not residents
Of the State imposing the tax. Asher was a res
ident Of New Orleans, and while selling goods
by sample 10 Texas Was arrested and fined for
violation Of the State Law making it 9 misde
meanor for any person to do business as q COM
merciAl traveller without fret having taken ont
an occupation-tax certificate. Asher contested
the cons,itutionality of this statute. taking the
ground that IL was repuenant to the clause or
the Constitution giving Congress the exclusive
right to regulats interstate commerce. The
State court decided against him. Asher ap-
Dealed the case to the Supreme Court. which TO-
day gave Q decision in his favor. The court, ia
it's opinion, says that it sees no difference be-
tween this case and the Robins Tennessee case.
in which the State Law was held to be unconsti-
tutional. AS to the contention of the authori-
ties of Texas, that the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Robins case was in conflict with
prior decisions OF the court. Justics Bradley
very dryly Gays that. even were this true, the
court has always eu7nosed that . later decision
has the effect OF Vverruling q prior decision
with which Il may not be ia harmony. The court
then says: w do not propose to enter into q
renewed discussion OF the matter ct this time"
The Supreme Court also rendered an opinion
affirming the Judgment OF the Supreme Court OF
the State of Georgia in the case Of the Georgia
Railroad and Banking Company, plaintiff In
error, VI. the Railroad Commissioner Of Georgia.
The railroad ommissionsrs, bv authority of the
State legislature, prescribed what should be
reasonable aud just rates Of TRANSFORMATION. and
the railroad company brought an action against
them, claiming that the rates established consti-
tuted an impairment Of the contract between tho
State and company, its charter. granted in 1888,
having given il the exclusive right OF transpor-
tation over the roads 1t might construct, pro-
vided its transportation charges did not exceed
certain fixed rates. The Supreme Court,
in an opinion by Justice Field,
says that the reserved right Of
a State TO regulate charges py common carriers
cannot be taken away except by contract exc
pressed In clear and uneQuivocal language. The
charter of the company, the court holds. simply
provides that the company shall have tho exciu
sivs right 10 carry passengers aud merchandise
over its road 90 long as the maximum rates
specihsd are not exceeded. Il contains no stip-
~uiatiou, nor 10 anv implied, as to any future ac-
ton Of the LEGISLATURE. If the exclusive right
remain undisturbed. there can be Co inst kind
Of complaint that other limitations than those
expressed are placed upon the charges author
ICED, but 1t would REQUIRE much clearer language
than this 10 justify the court in holding that,
notwitbstAnding the altered conditions Of the
country in the fnture, the Legislature had con
trscted that the company might charge FOL
Transportation Os persons and property over lie
line TOR all time, up 20 the limits there desig
mated.
The court reversed the judgment OF the State
court, with costs, and remanded the case, with
| instructions to discharge the plaintiff In errci
from the Imprisonment complained of.