Citation Numbers: 14 F. 532
Judges: Hammond
Filed Date: 9/9/1882
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
This is an application for a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants, who are tax-collecting officers of the state and county, respectively, from collecting the privilege tax imposed by law on the defendants for doing business as an express company in the state of Tennessee. The plaintiff denied that it was an express company, claiming that its express freight department was only a part of its general freight-carrying business, so conducted for its own and the convenience of the public. On an agreed statement of facts, the state courts, by a final judgment of the supreme court, decided that the two classes of business were distinct, and that the defendant was liable for this license or privilege tax. Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. State, MSS. (Jackson, April, 1882.)
Passing all other questions like that of our jurisdiction, of which, perhaps, there is now no reasonable doubt, and that of the estoppel claimed by the litigation in the supreme court, as a matter res judi-cata, I am of opinion that the application must be denied on the merits. I should feel, on the cases cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, great difficulty in determining this question, for there is much force in the argument that this privilege tax is only an indirect mode for taxing the commerce itself. The supreme court has repeatedly said, what Mr. Justice Bradley says in Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 472, that “it is often difficult to draw the line between the power of the state and the prohibition of the constitution.” The distinctions made by the cases seem somewhat arbitrary; but this is possibly unavoidable, owing to the nature of the subject. As I read the cases, the principle is that so long as it is not a direct tax on the property carried in the commerce betvveen the states, imposed either on the goods or indirectly collected from them, and is only a tax on the franchises granted to the carrier in consideration of the grant, or, what is the same thing, a tax or tribute demanded for the privilege ef doing the business, the prohibition of the constitution does not apply. Of course, in analogy to our state adjudications, if, under the disguise of taxing a franchise or privilege, the state should undertake, by excessive taxation, to obstruct or prohibit the business of interstate commerce, the constitutional provision would protect against it. There is no claim of that in this case; and no intention to either obstruct or prohibit this defendant from doing this business can be inferred from these statutes. Fortunately for us, here the supreme court itself has drawn the line, and this case finds a direct precedent in the ease of Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, where the right of the state of Alabama to authorize the city of
The injunction is refused.
See Ex parte Thornton, 12 Fed. Rep. 551, note. See, as to restraining collection of tax, Second Nat. Bank v. Caldwell, 13 Fed. Rep. 434, note.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Article 1, § 8, sulxl. 8, of the federal constitution vests congress with the power to regulate interstate commerce, every part of which is indicated by the term.
Transportation is essential to commerce, as the transportation of articles from one state to another
Domestio Commerce. The power conferred on congress by the commercial clause of the constitution is exclusive, so far as relates to matters within
A state may regulate its own internal commerce,
State Authority to Tax. Where the tax imposed is only a tax on the privilege of doing business within the state, it is not in violation of the constitution ;
Tax ON Exports. A tax on freight taken out of or brought into a state is invalid.
Tax on Imports. Goods imported, in the hands of the importer, are not a mass of the property of the state,
DISCRIMINATION. Any discrimination against tho products of another state is in conflict with the commercial clause of the constitution.
Passenger, Taxes. The power of congress to regulate commerce extends to persons as well as property ;
Tonna&e Duty. A tax levied on a vessel irrespective of her value as property, and solely on the basis of her tonnage, is a duty on tonnage,
TRANSPORTATION of Goods. An act which affects the carriage of goods from state to state is unconstitutional and void,
а) Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534.
U. S. v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234.
The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449; U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 417; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Mitchell v. Steelman, 8 Cal. 363 ; Steam-boat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713; Moor v. Veazie, 32 Me. 343; Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.
People v. Brooks, 4 Denio, 469; State v. Delaware, etc., R. Co. 30 N. J. Law, 473.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 275; Clinton Bridge Case, 10 Wall 454.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. 5 Nev. 102; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western U. Tel. Co. 2 Woods, 643; Telegraph Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 1; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460. As to government messages, a tax by the state is on the means employed by the government to execute its constitutional powers, and is void. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 466.
U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 417.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 275; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Welton v. State, 91 U. S. 275; Henderson v. Mayor, etc., 92 U. S. 259; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 473.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 275; Welton v. State, 91 U. S. 275; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 282.
People v. Raymond, 34 Cal. 492.
Pick v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 6 Biss. 182
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 232.
Erie R. Co. v. New Jersey, 2 Vroom, 531.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; 17 Johns. Ch. 488; 4 Johns. Ch. 150, 175; U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72; Cooley v. Port-wardens, 12 How. 319; N. R. Steam-boat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 282; 45 Mass, 282 ; The Wilson v. U. S. 1 Brock. 423; People v. Brooks, 4 Denio, 469; Chapman v. Miller, 2 Spears, 769; South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4; Clinton Bridge Case, 10 Wall. 454.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 232; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Welton v. State, 91 U. S., 275; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 470.
Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 488; Welton v. State, 91 Mo. 232; Council Bluffs v. Kansas, etc., R. Co. 45.
Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691. See Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344.
King v. Amer. Trans. Co. 1 Flippin, 1.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1.
Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 300
Reading R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 418; Hays v. S. S. Co. 17 How. 596; S. S. Co. v. Port-wardens, 6 Wall. 31; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 36; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169: Tonnage Tax Cases, 13 Wall. 272; State Tax on Foreign Bonds, Id. 300; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 135.
Wilson v. Kansas, etc., R. Co. 60 Mo. 184; Wheeling Bridge Case, 18 How. 432; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; The Montello, 11 Wall. 411; Peck v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 94 U. S. 164; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 1; New Bedford Bridge Case, 1 Wood. & M 410; People v. Platt, 17 Johns, 195; Scott v. Wilson, 3 N. H. 321; Canal Com'rs v. People, 5 Wend. 448; People v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co. 15 Wend. 113; Mobile Co. Co. v. Kimball. 162 U. S. 691.
Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371.
Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 232; South Carolina v. Charleston, 4 Rich. 289; State Tax on Railroad Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 281; Reading R. Co. v. Pennsylvania. 15 Wall. 284
Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 277; State Tax on Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 291; Society for Sav. v Corte, 6 Wall. 606; Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 859; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 441; Erie Railway v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 497.
Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall 479.
Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73; Packet Co. v Catlettsburg. 105 U. S. 559.
Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456.
Reading R. Co. v. Connecticut, 15 Wall. 284; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; State Tax on Gross Railway Receipts, 15 Wall. 292. See Minot v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. 18 Wall. 286; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521.
Southern Express Co. v. Hood, 15 Rich. 66; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521. See Dubuque v. C., etc., R. Co. 47 Iowa, 196.
State v Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. 48 Md. 50.
Reading R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 9 Bax. 509.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 55 Tex. 314; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460; Telegraph Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 1; Packet Co. v. Catlettesburg, 105 U. S. 559.
1) Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 14 Cent. L. J. 448.
Steam-ship Co. v. Port-wardens, 6 Wall. 31.
Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 9 W. Va. 170.
Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 232.
Jackson Min. Co. v. Auditor General, 32 Mich. 488.
State v. Eagle, 34 N. J. L. 425; State v. Cumberland R. Co. 4 Md. 22. Are the statutes of a state in violation of the constitution if they subject to taxation the capital of her citizens, although on the day to which the assessment of it relates it is invested in products on shipboard in the course of exportation to foreign countries or in transit from one state to another for purposes of exportation — quare. People v. Commissioners, 104 U. S. 466.
State v. Eagle, 34 N. J. L. 427.
Ogilvie v. Crawford Co. 2 McCrary, 148.
Id. Timber, at a port in a state awaiting shipment, belonging to and in the hands of a foreign subject, and under contract of sale to parties abroad, while thus segregated from the mass of the property of the state is not subject to taxation. Blount v. Munroe, 60 Ga. 61.
Almy v. State, 24 How. 168; Woodruff v. Parham, 3 Wall, 173; 15 Wall. 280.
Almy v. State, 24 How. 169; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Hinson v. Latt, Id. 148; Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 34. See Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434.
Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; License Cases, 5 How. 575; Pervear v. Com. 5 Wall. 479; Waring v. Mayor, 8 Wall. 122; State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 295; People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; Wynne v. Wright, 4 Dev. & B. 19; Cowles v. Brittain, 2 Hawks, 204; Tracy v. State, 3 Mo.3; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U.S. 447; Davis v. Dashiel, Phil. N. C. 114; Cummings v. Savannah, R. M. Charlt. 26; Biddle v. Commonwealth, 13 Serg. & R. 405; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 447. And see Raguet v. Wade, 4 Ohio, 107.
People v. Moring, 47 Barb. 642; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; and see Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 314.
State v. Peckham, 3 R. I. 289. See Davis v. Dashiel, Phil. N. C. 114; Waring v. The Mayor, 8 Wall. 110.
Waring v. The Mayor, 9 Wall. 110; State v. Pinckney, 18 Rich. 474; Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 481.
Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 ; Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691.
State v. Furbush, 72 Me. 493; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123.
Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 431.
Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 119. See 12 Fed. Rep. 551, note.
Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123.
/¿) Id.
Van Buren v. Downing, 41 Wis. 122; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 415.
Brown v. Maryland, 22 Wheat. 419; License Cases, 5 How. 504; State v. North, 27 Mo. 464; Biddle v. Com. 13 Serg. & R. 405.
Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 531.
Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227; Blanchard v. The Martha Washington, 1 Chff. 473; Ex parte Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 145.
Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y. 92 U. S. 259.
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275.
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 349; People v. Raymond, 84 Cal. 492; State v. The Steam-ship Constitution, 42 Cal. 589.
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35.
Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 48; Clarke v. Phila., W. & B. R. Co. 4 Houst. 158.
Steam-ship Co. v. Port-warden, 6 Wall. 35.
Crandall v. Nevada. 6 Wall. 37 ; Clarke v. Philadelphia, 4 Honst. 158.
State v. Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 281.
Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534. But see State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 34 Md. 344; Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456.
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; People v. Downer, 7 Cal. 169 ; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35.
Pullman S. C. Co. v. Games, 3 Tenn. Ch. 587.
State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 203; Steam-ship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31; State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577.
Keokuk N. P. Co. v. Keokuk, 10 Chi. Leg. News, 91. As for harbors, pilotage, beacon lights, buoys, and the improvement of harbors, bays, and navigable rivers within-the state in the absence of congressional legislation : Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691. So as to laws imposing pilotage fees: Steam-ship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450; Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299.
State v. Charleston, 4 Rich. 286; Benedict v. Vanderbilt, 1 Robt. 194; The Martha J. Ward, 14 La. Ann. 289.
Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299; Wharf Case, 8 Bland, 361; Keokuk v. K. & C. Co. 45 Iowa. 186; Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273; Sterrett v. Houston, 14 Tex. 166; Municipality v. Pease, 2 La. Ann. 538; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 20: Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434.
Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577.
State Tonnage Tax Case, 12 Wheat. 219; Alexander v. Railroad Co. 3 Strob. 594; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84.
Northwestern N. P. Co. v. St. Paul, 3 Dill. 454.
Worsley v. Municipality, 9 Rob. (La.) 324; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84.
State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232; Erie Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, Id. 282.
State Freight Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 232.
Reading R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232.
Minot v. Phila., etc., R. Co. 2 Abb. (U. S.) 323; S. C. 7 Phila. 555; Cook v. Com. 6 Amer. Law Reg 378.
State Tax on Gross Railway Receipts, 15 Wall. 284.
Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 417; Missouri v. North, 27 Mo. 479.
Passenger Cases. 7 How. 283.