The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1890-08-16
TILE FERTILIZER TAX
ItD&FS BOND AND sp,
pEcIDEIT is UNCoS.
SrITuTIONAr.
And not C"llcctiblc by the S,ato.-,,.a
Text OF the Opinion.


'ltGd ot fertilizers sold within tho s.o4o
'0,S ''N has been collected for Years
making an annual revenue Of ahont
SiS'ooo which money has been ann,iod
IT'D 'ue maintenance of the State Depart
m.nt OF Agriculture, the Enumeration
department, the Bureau of Labor Sta.
''s'I'' ana to the partial mathematics
"i the Agricultural and Mechanical
college, uc.
iat year, Richmond fertilizer com.
pary, through its attorney in this citv
used the question as to the copstitu.
AouaIity Of this tax, and was about to
oting test suit, when learning that
the farmers OF the State favored the tax
lney withdrew all protest and abandon
ed the suit.
Later the American Fertilizer COM
pany, Of Norfolk, put its goods ON sale
lA tuis STATE without paying the license
'NA OF f5OO. The commissioner of agri.
culture immediately seized such Of the
company goods IS he c.uld lay his hands
Oh, This company at once raised flo
question OF the eonstitutionality of the
tiN' ana sued out an injunction in the
lMted States circuit court to prevent
iAe further seizure of goods until the
matter should be settled, the injunction
go hold II the tax should be declared nm
constitutional. The commissioner moved
.or dissolution of the Injunction.
Ihe case was argued in the circuit
court here last June before Judges Bond
Uui Seymour.
The commissioner was represented by
tGe Attorney General and Messrs. Battle
sod Mordecai, and the company by Col
john w. Hinsdale.
judge Seymour sent III q decision in
the case yesterday, which is concurred
DO 10y Judge Bond, and it sets forth that
tLc Iceuse tax is unconstitutional.
Thc Opinion by Judge Seymour.
The plaintiff, a citizen and resident of
virginia, briugs this suit against the
board OF agriculture of North Carolina.
.5 perpetually enjoin the latter from en-
forcing against ii the State tax on fertil-
iz-rs. The act in litigation The Code
s.. 2l90, amended and re enacted in the
Senate of March 26, 1882 provides in
section Z, of the last mentioned statute
as vel, rs in the act which it amends.
brought forward in the Code, that no
.ummerclal fertilizers shall be sold or
uNtfed for sale until the manufacturer
ar importer obtains license from the
treasurer Of the State for which shall be
paid a privilege tax of five hundred dol
,ars per aunum for each separate brand.
The plaintiff alleges that it is engaged
il Inc manufacture and sale of CONNER
cial fertilizers; that it has large and
profitable business in North Carolina,
amounting annually to over twenty-five
thousand dollars; that it has on hand in
the State more than two thousand dol
lars worth Of fertilizers that defend
ants have under the pretext that they
are subject to forfeiture for non payment
1i such tax, seized a car load Of its fer
Oilers and threaten to seize all fertili-
RS which plaintiff had shipped or shall
hip into the State, and that they will
prosecute its agents for misdemeanor in
..i.iug its fertilizers without having OBJ
tgiued the license required by the statutes
above cited, and aver that unless defen-
Jtuts are restrained, its business will be
utterly destroyed, and it will be endam-
aged in sum exceeding ten thousand
dollars, and that its goods in excess of
two thousand dollars will be seized by
je'eadaut5 under the provisions of such
oxidation.
Defendants by their answer admit the
a.lgrc Gi che fertilizer as alleged in the
epmplaint and aver that the cause of
ulh seizure was the failure and refusal
a. the plaintiff TO pay license tax of
iye hundred dollars as required by the
.l|s of tho State. They also admit
'aat unless restrained by this court, they
".i continue to make seizures and in
tilute prosecutions against plaintiffs,
agents, &c, and insist that the tax in
question is valid, both as a tax on the
trade of selling commercial fertilizers
and further as public regulation Of the
state.
rho case has been argued at the pres
emit term on a motion made by defendant
upon the pleadings to dissolve the in
ucton heretofore granted by the Cir
euit Judge.
At the outset it is claimed that the
court has no Jurisdiction on the ground
HAT the amount in controversy IS less
than two thousand dollars. We do not
jauk the subject of the controversy
limited to the sum Of Eve hundred dol
ius the tax imposed. The tax is an an
lual one, and the value to plaintiff OF
the Injunction cannot be measured by
Che tax Of q single year. Moreover,
plaintiff asks to be relieved from threat
eaed penalties, and from interference
with its business, illegal if this tax up
on its brand is unconstitutional, the
damage TO result from which 1t places
at large sum The court cannot, at
this stage of the case, determine that
such damages will be less than the
su.a required to give it jurisdiction.
H. X. Go. VS.. Ward, Black 4S3 seems
to us in point. 1t was an action brougnt
for the abatement of a bridge as pup
JIG nLi3a TO the objection that the
damages sustained by plantlff were not
sufficient to give the court jurisdiction,
Catron J. SAYS: "The character OF the
nuisance and the sufliciency of the dam
age sustained is to be judged by the
courts. But the want of sufficient
amount of DAMAGE having been sustain
ed to give the Federal courts jurisdiction
viii not defeat the remedy, as tue re-
moyal Of the obstruction is the matter IN
nF n