The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-06-27

cd from any state, congress could lay tax or
uty on articles exported from tho District OF
Columbia. But the court properly held that a
citizen Of the district is not a citizen of a
state and cannot use the United States courts as
such, Chief Justice Marshall saying:
The members of the American coniederacy only
are the States contemplated in the Constitution.
The house Of representatives is to be composed
OF members chosen by the people OF the sew.
eral states and each state shall have at least
one representative. The senate Of the United i
each state Each state shall appoint, for the
election Of the executive number Of electors
equal to its whole number Of senators and rep,
resentatives These clauses show that the word
state is used in the Constitution as designating
q member OF the Union.
Applies to Citizen.
II is obvious that this ruling applies, and in.
deed it was subsequently held to apply to the
citizens Of the territories.
The states alone the members OF the Ameri-
can confederacy; they constitute the union and
the union and the United States are equivalent
terms in the constitution. Thus the constitu-
tion and "the laws of the United States are
made the supreme law of the land (Artclc 8,
Clause 2), yet congress is 10 provide for calling
forth the militia to execute 'the laws OF the
union" article /, Section s, Clause 15). All
legislative powers granted are vested in the con-
gress ''of the United States" (Article l, Section
y, but the president is required, from time to
time, to give to the congress information OF the
state "of the union" article Q, Section 81.
In the first article, defining the legislative pow
ers, it is provided that Representatives and di-
rect taxes shall be apportioned among the sew
eral states which may be included within this
union" This does not include the territories,
but does operate throughout the United States.
''Duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States" This, too, is a
geographical limitation, requiring indirect taxes
to operate generally throughout the United
States, that is, among the several states com
posing the union The history of the adoption
of this provision will be found, in interesting
form, in the learned opinion of Mr.. Justice
White in the recent case of Knowlton VS.. Moore
Q77 L. S. y sustaining the constitutional
ity of the federal tax on legacies. In the ori.
gnal draft the provision prohibiting any prefer
ence to the ports of one state over those OF an
other and that comforting and limiting the tax
ing power were placed together. They really
mean the same thing, that the states Of the
union shall be treated alike in the regulation OF
commerce and the imposition Of taxes The uni
formity required in each case was uniform
ity among the several states Of the union. And
this is shown by the decision in the Cherokee
tobacco case III Wall, 6l6). affirming the con
sttutionality of the Act Of 1865, extending the
excise tax on liquors and tobacco alone to the
Indian territory. A minority Of the court Gus.
tices Bradley and Davis) held, in view of the
treaty provisions, that il was not the inten.
tion of congress to extend even the tax on
liquors and tobacco to the Indian territory.
Obviously, the court was unanimous in the opin'
ion that although the Indian Territory is within
the exterior boundaries of the United States, the
provision OF the constitution requiring excuses
to be uniform throughout the United States does
not apply within the Indian Territory, a conclu.
sion which efcctualy disposes of the dictum in
Loughborough vs. Blake.