Court Opinion

ID: 9416818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:56:40.772806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.088888
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice BRADLEY:
I concur in the opinion of the court, that the act of the legislature of Maryland, complained of in this case, discriminates in favor of residents and against non-residents of the State, and consequently is in violation of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, pro tanto, void. But I am further of opinion that the act is in violation of the commercial clause of the Constitution, which confers upon Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States; and it would be so, although it imposed upon residents the same burden for selling goods by sample as is imposed on non-residents. Such a law would effectually prevent the manufactures of the manufacturing States from selling their goods in other States unless t.hey established commercial, houses therein, or sold to resident . merchants who chose to send them orders. It is, in fact, a *433duty upon importation .from one State to another, under the name of a tax. ■ I therefore dissent from any expression in the opinion, of the court which, in any way, implies that.such a burden, whether in the shape of a tax or a penalty, if made equally upon residents and non-residents, would be constitutional. -
Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the court below to conform its judgment
To THE OPINION OP THIS COURT.