Year: 1869

Important Decision in Maryland.


Selling by Sample.


From the Baltimore Sun, 2Gh.


COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS LICENSES.


The Court of Appeals, in the case of Elias
Ward, citizen of New Jersey, rs. The
State of Maryland, on appeal from the Cri-
minal Court of this city, have affirmed the
judgment of Judge Gilmor imposing fine
of four hundred dollars and costs for viola
tion of the act of 1868, chapter 4l3, in sell
ing bride fronts, &C., to Conrad Zeul, of
this city, without license. The act imposes
penalty of not less than four hundred dol
lars nor more than six hundred dollars on
persons not being permanent residents Of
this State who shall sell, offer for sale, or
expose for sale, within the limits of the city
Of Baltimore, any goods, wares, or merchan-
disc, other than agricultural products and
articles manufactured in the State of Mary
land, either by card, sample, or other spe-
cimens, &c. 1t was contended by the ap-
pellant Ward that the act of the General
Assembly is repugnant to two provisions of
the Constitution of the United States. First,
to that clause of the eighth section of the
| first article which grants to Congress the
power "to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and among the secerdl States, and
| with the Indian tribes-' Second, to that
clause of the second section of the fourth
article which declares that "the citizens OF
each State shall be entitled to all the privi-
leges and immunities of citizens of the seve-
raj States.'


The Court Of Appeals in their opinion
say that the law in question is not Il law
which upon its face purports to levy a tax,
| by way of license to sell, upon either foreign
or domestic imports whilst remaining in
the hands of the importer in original pack
ages. The Indictment does not charge, nor
does the record show, that the goods sold by
appellant were goods of this description,
nor does the law purport to be tax upon
the transit of goods through the State for
traffic or commercial purposes. But it is Il
tax upon particular business or trade
carried on entirely within the limits Of the
State"


The Court of Appeals, after reviewing
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States bearing upon the subject,
say: -.


"These decisions show that The constitu-
tional provision, if effective, prevent the
property, real or personal, owned by nom
resident, and located in the State, from
being subjected to any higher rate of State
taxation than similar property of resident
owners but in our judgment they do not
cover the present case. The law before us
is not a tax upon either person or property,
but on a particular trade or business car
ricd on in the State, and cannot, in our
opinion, be regarded as imposing higher
rate of taxation upon nOn-residents than
upon citizens, either in respect to person or
property. Nor do we perceive it in any other
respect unjust, unfair, or discriminatory, in
operation and effect. We have shown that
the State has power to impose license
tax on all trade or business carried on
in it's BORDERS, whether by its own
citizens Or those of other States. The
resident owner or trader is required
to take out license to carry on his business
or trade, and his property and goods here
situated are also subject to State, county,
and CITY, taxation. There is nothing upon
the face of the law or in this record to show
that the nonresident trader doing the husi-
ness thus taxed is thereby subjected tc
heavier taxation than the resident mcr-
chant carrying on the like retail or whole
sale business. 1t certainly cannot be said
to be an immunity or privilege secured by
| this clause of the Constitution that nom
resident merchant or trader shall be per-
mittcd to come into State and trade or do
business therein and pay neither license
tax on his trade or tax on his property,
whilst the resident merchant must pay both !;
to have all the advantages of a resident
trader, and escape all taxation to which the
latter is subjected. The law does not pre-
vent his bringing his goods here and selling
them in the same mode and subject to the
same tax as that imposed on all citizens OF the
State, but simply provides that if he keeps his
goods elsewhere, and seeks to carry on the
business of selling them here by card or sam
pie, he shall pay q certain tax by way OF
| license for so doing; and there is nothing
to show, and nothing in our license laws
| from which it can be inferred, that the rate
of license thus required exceeds in amount
the taxes to which the resident trader Is
subjected. We do not, however, rest our
decision altogether upon this ground, for we
are, further, of opinion that even If this law
is to be regarded as restrictive and discriml-
natory in its character and designit still SIM
ply imposes tax on a particular business
carried on in particular mode within the
limits of the State, which it is perfectly
competent for the Legislature to regulate
and restrain, and in so doing has violated
neither of the clauses of the Constitution of
the United States to which reference has
been made. The judgment is accordingly
atfirmed.o