Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

upon shipping using the improved waterway, but a state may not levy charges for an improved waterway upon vessels whose draught is so light that the improvement has been of no benefit to such vessels.42

Wharves and piers.

47. A state may build wharves on navigable waters and collect reasonable tolls for the use thereof,43 for such tolls, not being impositions by virtue of sovereignty, are not taxes but are charges for services rendered or for conveniences provided, and they are claimed in right of proprietorship. Whether wharfage tolls be, or be not, in fact reasonable is not a question of federal law, nor as such cognizable in a court of the United States in cases other than those in which the federal court has acquired jurisdiction by reason of the citizenship of the parties.44 Nevertheless, the right of a state to build wharves and charge tolls therefor cannot be so exercised as to discriminate in favour of the products of its own territory and against those of other states.45

State duties upon imports and exports.

48. "Imports" are goods brought into a state from a foreign country, and goods brought from one state into another are not "imports." 46 As the power vested in the United States to regulate commerce with foreign nations includes the power to impose duties on the im⚫portation of foreign goods, and to license, on the payment

"Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543; Sands v. M. R. I. Co., 123 id. 288; L. & P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 id. 126.

12 Harman v. Chicago, 147 U. S. 396.

43

P. Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; P. Co. v. St. Louis, 100 id. 423; Vicksburg v. Tobin, ibid. 430; P. C. v. Catlettsburg, 105 id. 559.

T. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; O. P. Co. v. Aiken, 121 id. 444. 45 Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434; infra, Section 50.

"A. S. & W. Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500.

47

of those duties, the sale of the imported goods within any state, and as there is an express constitutional prohibition of state duties on imports and exports, excepting such duties as may be absolutely necessary for executing the inspection laws of the state, it follows that a state cannot require under a penalty importers of foreign goods by the bale or package, and vendors of the same by wholesale, to take out a license as a prerequisite to the sale of such imported goods in the original form and package in which they are imported, and before they become incorporated with the mass of property in the state. On the same principle, a state cannot impose an ad valorem tax upon imported goods remaining in their original cases in the hands of the importer, even though a similar tax be imposed on all merchandise in the state; 48 and a state cannot tax an auctioneer's sales of imported goods in their original cases and for the account of the importers thereof.49 Yet separately wrapped packages of foreign dry goods brought into a state in wooden cases are subject to state taxation upon their being taken from their cases.50 Merchandise brought from a foreign country and which by the terms of the contract of purchase is not to be at the risk of the purchaser until delivered to him in the port of entry, does not come within the constitutional meaning of the term "imports," and such goods, though in their original packages, may be taxed by the state in whose port their purchase is completed by delivery.51

47 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419.

18 Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 29.

Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566. 50 May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496. Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, is explained in Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 138, and should have been decided upon the ground that the tax in question was a tax upon the transportation of goods from one state to another, and, therefore, a regulation of commerce and as such void.

[blocks in formation]

State inspection laws.

49. The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country, to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use. They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce, or of commerce among the states, and prepare it for that purpose.52 Such laws prescribe some or all of certain requisites, such as the quality of the article, the form, capacity, dimensions, weight, or marking of the package, and, to enforce compliance with their requirements, they provide for supervision by public officers.53 Therefore, a state may prohibit under a penalty the exportation, without inspection, of articles produced in the state, such as tobacco,54 and may require the official measurement of coal,55 and lumber,56 and the inspection of fertilizers.57 The words "inspection laws," "imports," and "exports," as used in the Constitution, having exclusive reference to property, as distinguished from persons, 58 a state per capita tax on immigrants cannot be sustained as a means of executing the inspection laws of a state.59 But a state may not, under the pretence of an inspection law, regulate interstate commerce, as by requiring an inspection by a public officer, upon payment of fees, of all meat slaughtered more than one hundred miles from the place of sale, when there is no such requirement with regard to meat slaughtered at a less distance from the place of sale; 60 or by requiring an inspection of

"Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 203, per Marshall, C. J. "Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 55.

"Turner v. Maryland, ubi supra.

"P. & S. C. Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590.

"L. & P. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126.

"P. G. Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 345.

"Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. "People v. C. G. T., 107 U. S. 59.

"Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78.

all flour ground without the state, when there is no such requirement as to flour ground within the state; 61 or by prohibiting the sale of meat which has not been inspected on the hoof within the state; 62 or by requiring, as a prerequisite to the shipment of alcoholic liquors into the state, an analysis by the state chemist of a sample thereof.63

Taxation discriminating against goods from other states.

50. A state may tax goods brought in from another state, though in the hands of the consignee and in the original packages; 64 but a state cannot by taxation discriminate against either the natural products of, or the goods manufactured in, other states, whether by requiring of every non-resident trader as a prerequisite to his sales of other than agricultural products of or articles manufactured in the state, a higher license fee than is required of traders in domestic goods; 65 or by requiring payment of a license fee by vendors of merchandise "not the growth, produce, or manufacture" of the state, no license fee being required of vendors of domestic merchandise; 66 or by charging vessels laden with the products of other states for the use of public wharves, when vessels laden with the products of the state are permitted to use such wharves without charge; or by requiring a non-resident merchant desiring to sell by sample in the state to pay for a license to do that business a sum to be ascertained by the amount of his

67

Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62.

62 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313. 63 Vance v. W. A. V. Co., 170 U. S. 438.

Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Emert v. Missouri, 156 id. 296.

65 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418. Bradley, J., concurred, but held that the license required would be equally void if it imposed upon residents the same burden for selling goods as it imposed upon non-residents, for it would be in fact a duty upon importations from one state to another. 6 Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; Webber v. Virginia, 103 id. 344. "Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434.

stock in trade in the state where he resides, and in which he has his principal place of business; 68 or by imposing a tax on each selling agent of a foreign dealer while not imposing a tax upon the selling agents of a domestic dealer; 69 or by imposing a license tax upon wholesale dealers in brewed or malt liquors but exempting from such tax all dealers paying a lesser tax for the privilege of manufacturing liquors within the state; 70 or by statutes under the guise of inspection laws imposing discriminating taxes upon products of other states, as, for instance, by requiring that no meat slaughtered one hundred miles or more from the place of sale should be offered for sale unless previously inspected by a local official and a fee paid therefor, while requiring no inspection to be made of meat slaughtered within one hundred miles of the place of sale; or by requiring flour brought into the state and offered for sale therein to be inspected by a state official and a fee paid therefor, while requiring no inspection to be made of flour produced within the state.72 Nor can a state, under the act 73 which was passed to legislatively overrule the Original Package Case,74 establish, so far as regards the sale of intoxicating liquors, a system which would in effect discriminate between interstate and domestic commerce in commodities whose manufacture and use are permitted by the state.75 There is no unlawful discrimination in requiring prepayment of the tax by vendors of the products of other states, while vendors of domestic goods are permitted to pay the same tax on re

71

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »