IN BE ÛODOLPH. 65 �In re Eudolph. {Circuit Court, B. Nevada. March, 1880.) �TbAVELIÎTG MERCHANT8— LiOENSB TAX— StTBD. 2, § 10, AbT. 1, AND SUBD. �3, i 8, AiiT. 1, OP THE Constitution. — A statute of Nevada provided that " every traveling merchant, agent, drummer or other peraou selling, or ofEering to Bell, any goods, wares or merchandise of any kind, to be de- li vered at, some future time, or carrying samples and selling, or ofEering to sell, goods, wares or merchandise of any kind similar to such samples, to be delivered at some future time," should obtain alicense,andpay$25 a month for the same. The statuts further provided that any person without such license, " so oŒering any goods, wares or merchandise for gale, sball be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be flned in any sum not less than $50 nor more than $500." Held, (1) that said statute did not violate subd. 2, i 10, art. 1 of the constitution, prohibit- ing the States from laying iraposts or duties on imports; (2) that such statute did not violate subd. 3, j 8, art. 1 of the constitution, conf erring upon congress power to " regulate commerce among the several states." �Lewis de Deal, foï petitioner. �Attorney General Murphy, for respondent. �Sawyer, g. J. The petitioner is a citizen of California, and in the employment of Adelsdufer & Go., merchants of San Francisco, California, engaged in the coffee and spice trade. He -was traveling is Nevada, engaged in such employment, oSering to sell and selling such goods, wares and merchandise as his employers dealt in. Upon making sales he transmitted the orders to said employers in San Francisco, who filled them and shipped the goods sold to the parties ordering them, at their respective places of business in Nevada. For selling goods in the course of said employment at Virginia Gity, Nevada, he -was arrested and held in custody upon a warrant issued upon a charge of having committed the offence of pur- suing such business without having procured a license as required by the statute of Nevada, passed February 20, 1877, (St. 1877-79.) �A writ of liabeas corpus having been issued and the body ot the prisoner produced, he now asks to be discharged from custody on the ground that said act is void, as being in vio- lation of subdivision 3, section 8, article 1, of the Gonstitution of the United States, conferring upon congress power to "regu- �v.2,no.l — 5 ����
