Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/92189/united-states-vs-hvoslef
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:50:48+00:00

Document:
made in the court below. The general language of the demurrer with respect to jurisdiction had appropriate reference to the general authority of the court to entertain such a suit against the United States and to the jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. But assuming that the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, the requirement as to the particular district within which the suit should be brought was but a modal and formal one, which could be waived, and must be deemed to be waived in the absence of specific objection upon this ground before pleading to the merits. St. Louis &c.; Ry. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127 , 141 U. S. 131 ; Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129 , 151 U. S. 133 ; Martin v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 151 U. S. 673 , 151 U. S. 688 ; Interior Construction Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217 , 160 U. S. 220 ; Western Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston Mining Co., 210 U. S. 368 ; Arizona & New Mexico Ry. v. Clark, 235 U. S. 669 , 235 U. S. 674 .
Id., pp. 25 U. S. 444 -445. And in Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, applying the same principle, the Court said, by Chief Justice Taney, that "a tax or duty on a bill of lading, although differing in form from a duty on the article shipped," was "in substance the same thing," for "a bill of lading, or some written instrument of the same import" was "necessarily always associated with every shipment of articles of commerce from the ports of one country to those of another." There, as was pointed out in Woodruff v. Parham, supra, shipments to foreign ports were not in fact involved, but this did not detract from the force of the statement so far as it concerns the effect of the tax described.
Following this decision, it was held by the district court that the stamp tax on manifests of cargoes for foreign ports was invalid. These manifests were essential to the exportation. New York & Cuba Mail S.S. Co. v. United States, 125 F. 320. And while the case was determined in this Court upon another ground, the correctness of this ruling as to the invalidity of the tax was conceded by the United States. 200 U. S. 200 U.S. 488, 200 U. S. 491 .
applied to the charter parties here in question was nothing else than a tax on exportation, and to this extent was, in any event, invalid. The same principle governs that has constantly been held to obtain in cases where it has been sought to give effect to taxes upon interstate commerce under general legislation of the states. In Robbins v. Shelby County, supra, it was strongly urged, "as if it were a material point in the case," that no discrimination was made "between domestic and foreign drummers," -- that is, between those of the state whose legislation was in question and those of other states; that all were taxed alike. But the court held that this did not meet the difficulty, inasmuch as interstate commerce could not "be taxed at all, even though the same amount of tax should be laid on domestic commerce." This had been decided, as the Court pointed out, in the case of The State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232, and it has become one of the commonplaces of constitutional law. See Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289 , 153 U. S. 304 ; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622 , 187 U. S. 629 ; Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507 , 203 U. S. 510 ; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389 . We know of no ground upon which a different effect can be given to the explicit constitutional provision which denies to Congress the right to tax exportation from the states.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.