The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1890-08-16

lDrs III eAlced live hundred dol.
s,id. ..r,' - coart IN denying the motion
oe ~ , me matter in dispute is the ysIna gsin,
,,,a ti8ht TO maintain the awnino. :, : ~ ~
,,lai"t;a "nlouns 20 OF damage done by If - tho
sroa aln'ln: This appears to be more - ~ 'ne ~
7'uo h'tman vs.. Hubbell. 80 + r 81
;nt uu III the same court in an action for
Infringement of trademark Wheel.
:. says: There would be dif1ionitu 1''ai -
a,nalu1ainlng :. the jurisdiction. If tha nrn -
neo 70 oe recovered were the noa.s,,.o
- me orators rights involved. hnt tba !
= noe 50 understood. An iniunction n.y. ,s,
~ VI much greater value 10 tha oratas
'Aah any amount he may show binsaIf E
ehCitled to, and it cannot he said noa.
mat such value may not exceed tba ,;.s,;, nom
required" Symonds vs.. Green % s'iill = :
L. S34. oieen' 20 r.
tba we care are therefore of the opinion that
tho+ aoun. IL controversy is not below
'iia, a., required to give jurisdiction.
1ne NAN question is, whether or not
sne .aA IS unconstitutional. No donbt
= o1aie may tax any person for the priv.
V'So ol DONG any particular business
1Aereln, unless prevented by some SEQ
tion OF the constitution Of the I1nitnl
nIates. M'Cullock V. MARYLAND 4
Wheat, 316, 429. The contention Of
me plaintiff is, that it cannot be taxed
uuoer the provisions of the legislature
above set forth because
l.. Ouch taxation infringes unon tho
rights OF citizens of other States. and
therefore violates article w section .
oi ...n ane constitution, which provides that
the citizens of each State shall be en-,
'ltled to all privileges and immunities
or cltlzens IN the several States.n and
also, Art. XIV, section l, of the amend,
ments TO the constitution, which nro-
Sloes, among other things, that mo
state shall make any law which shall
aorldge the privileges or immunities Of
citizens OF the United States"
= Because such taxation is an imnost
on imports, and therefore violates ART
l, section 10, of the constitution, which
provides, among other things, that "no
state shall, without the consent of Con.
gress, lay any impost or duties on i'm
ports except what may be ab
solutely necessary for executing it's in
spection laws
8. Because such tax is an interference
with the inter State commerce, and
therefore violates Art, |, section s, which
provides that the Congress shall have
power Ito regulate commerce
among the several States"
l. We do not find anything in the
legislation in question which brings it
within the lnhibitions in either section
? of article " Of the constitution, or in
the fourteenth amendment thereto. No
privilege with regard to the sale Of com
merclal fertilizer seems given by the act
to any citizen of North Carolina which
IS denied to the plaintiff, and unless this
re attempted it could hardly be said it
Is deprived of any privilege or immu-
nifty 1t is entitled to under the constitu
tion--wlthin the meaning of these con
stitutional provisions.
IL Although the statute in question
does not in word impose a tax on fertj-
lizers imported into the State, but one
on the privilege of selling or Offering for
sale only, 1t is not now admissible to ar
gde that the latter is not equivalent to
the former. That question was settled
IN Brown vs.. Maryland, - wheat, 419
A statute of Maryland required all i'm
porters of foreign articles or other per-
sons selling the same by wholesale to
pay license tax. The question was
whether the imposition of such tax
was a violation of the two first
mentioned provisions of the constitu-
tion. Marshall, G. j., in delivering the
opinion of the Court defined 'tan i'm
post as tax levied on articles brought
into the county, and held that tax
on the sale of an article is tax on the
article itself, and that tax on the occu-
patton of the importer was tax on i'm
portations. The tax under consideration
is tax on the privilege of selling, that
is, tax levied and colleced in advance
upon the occupation OF selling CONNER
cial fertilizers. 1t IS, therefore, tax on
the fertilizer. This case, however, diff
fers from Brown vs.. Maryland, (supra)
for in that case the license was for sell
ling foreign articles, and in this the
articles sold are brought not from
without the United States, but from the
sister State of Virginia.
The question then arises whether or
not the term imports,!in Art. 10, Sec. 10
Includes, as well, articles brought into
one State from another as those import
ed from abroad Marshall, G. j., in
the opinion in the last cited
case, holds that it does, He says Brown
vs. Maryland, II Wheat at p. 449) 1T
may be proper to add that we suppose
the principle laid down in this case. to
apply equally to importations from an
other State" The contrary is expressly
held by Mr.. Justice Miller deliv
ering the prevailing opinion in
Woodruff VS.. Parham, Wall 123,
and implied by Taney, c. j., in
in Pierce VS.. New Hampshire, HaW.
554 Both of these cases may be consider
ed as overruled in Leisy vs.. Hardin 1876 Y. |
S. The Original Package Law. Certainly |
the latter is. But whatever may De the
result of the reasoning of the Chief JUS
tice in Leisy vs.. Hardin, it IS nowhere
said in his opinion that the term import
applies to an article brought from one
State to another We're it not for the |
forcibe argument of the prevailing
opinion in Woodruff VS.. Parham, we
would not hesitate to say that the
term import included, as Chief Justice
Marshall evidently supposed that it did,
goods brought from one State to anoth-
er. Before the adoption of the constl-
tuition, therefore, at the time when 1t
was framed and its phraseology discuss
ed, an article brought from Pennsylvania
10 North Carolina would have been said
L Hay, ND