The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1916-02-15
FINE BY CRADDOCK
PRONOUNCED ILLEGAL
Decision Of the United States
Supreme Court is Cited
by Mr.. Pengra.

Wy WI. FCiIYI d.
James A. Pengra, of Plttsburg, west
ern Pennsylvania and West Virginia
agent of the Shredded Wheat Com
pany, of Niagara Falls, q. " submits
the following In connection with the
act Of Mayor Craddock OF Broad Oaks
in imposing fine on W. q. Fulmer
recently:
in the issue of the Exponent
American, on Tuesday, February 10
the Honorable Joseph n. Craddock,
mayor OF Broad Oaks, made the state
ment that the Telegram was misin-
formed regarding the fine paid by W.
Z. Fulmer OF the Shredded Wheat
Company. AS evidence that 1t is the
Exponent American that is badly de-
luded and mlsead, Mr.. w. D. Fulmer
has a receipt for 5000 signed by said
Craddock. Also he made the state
ment that the United States supreme
court has never passed on the Illegal
ity OF an ordinance such as that under
discussion. As absolute proof that he
has made another statement that is
not true | am enclosing extracts from
several copies Of various suits showing
that the United States supreme court
has already passed on the questions
and has decided in favor Of the posi-
ton and attitude that your present
mayor of Clarksburg takes.
81 dislike very much to see the may
or OF progressive, up-to-date town
like Clarksburg revilcd and abused be-
cause he does not act in the same man
ner on some OF the old Blue laws that
may be on the statute books as others
with decidedly less discernment. A
mayor is not necessarily elected to en-
force all the laws in existence, but to
use the power Of his office with dis
cretionary judgment.
Real American towns with TWEEN
tieth century ideals are not following
in the footsteps OF some old Chinese
highlander society; nor do they have
to steep themselves in the sins Of the
foot-pad and highwayman in order to
put a dollar in the treasury"
Judge Jradley's Decision.
United States supreme court decides
manufacturers agent can make a
distribution Of advertising matter in
every town in the United States with.
out paying license.
In the Supreme Court Of the United
States, 100 page, 4S9 United States re-
ports, Robbins VS.. Shelby county tax
ing district. Justice Bradley, deliver
ing the opinion of the court, says:
1.-THE only way commerce between
states can be legitimately effected by
state law is by virtue of its police pow
err. but in making any such internal
regulations a state cannot impose
taxes upon person passing through
the state. or coming into it for tenn
porary purpose, especially in connec-
ton with interstate commerce"
In discussing the various ways in
which a merchant or manufacturer
from one state may solicit orders in
another state, Justice Bradley says:
at may be suggested that merchants
or manufacturers have the postoffice
at their command and may solicit
orders through the mail. We do not
suppose, however, that anyone would
contend that this is the only way in
which could be solicited without being
amenable to exactions on the part of
the state. Besides, why could not the
state to which letters might be sent
tax them for soliciting orders in this
way, as we'll as in any other way?"
Further along in the opinion it Is
said:
"But to tax the sale of goods, or the
offer to sell them, before goods are
brought into the state is very differ
ent thing and is clearly tax on inter-
state commerce itself"
Interstate commerce cannot be
taxed at all, even though the same
amount flax should be laid on do
nestle commerce, or that which is
carried on solely within the state;
this was decided in the case Of the
state freight tax cases, Is Wall. 1872"
In the case of Angove VS.. City OF
Columbus, No. $3.50, court Of common
pleas, Franklin county, o., the Hon.
Thomas NJ. Bigger, Judge, in render
ing his decision says:
"Does not the levyng Of tax or
any other restriction upon citizens OF
other states for selling or seeking to
sell their goods affect the very founda-
lions Of interstate trade?"
1t will be seen from language quoted
that the supreme court Of the United
States regards any restriction imposed
upon freedom Of commerce between
the states as violation of the federal
constitution, whether it be license
on sales or a mere offer to SELL"
In this case it may be said 1t was
not selling but only distributing adj
vertising matter, the purpose OF which,
however, was to secure sales OF goods
manufactured In another state; and
the state Of Ohio under the decision
cited, has no power to impose a re-
striction upon the offering for sale
in this case the distribution OF adver-
Using matter.
There is long line of decisions to
the same effect by the Supreme Court
of the United States which is not nee
cssary here to cite. am clearly OF
the opinion that the ordinance requir-
ing payment Of license, under which
the defendant was convicted, is clearly
unconstitutional and void, as well as
the act Of the legislature to authorize
cities to enact such an ordinance.
Further case references:
Gibbons v. ogden, 0 Wheat, ] and
222; Brown " Maryland, u Wheat.