Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/73

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

66 FBCEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �late commerce among the several states ;" also, of section 10, subdivision 2, of the same article, prohibiting the states from laying imposts or duties on imports. �The statute of Nevada in question provides that "every traveling merchant, agent, drummer or other person selling, or offering to sell, any goods, wares or merchandise of any kind, to be delivered at some future time, or carrying sam- ples and selling, or offering to sell, goods, wares or merchan- dise of any kind similar to such samples, to be delivered at some future time," shall obtain a license, and pay for such license $25 per month. It further provides that any person ■without a license, "so offering any goods, wares or merchan- dise for sale, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on con- viction shall be fined in any sum not less than $50 nor more than $600." �It is settled in the case of Woodruff v. ParKam, 8 Wall. 123, that the word "imports, " as used in subdivision 2, section 10, of article 1, of the Constitution, does not apply to goods brought from one state into another, but is limited to goods brought into the United States from some foreign country. The stat- ute of Nevada, therefore, does not violate that provision of the constitution. �We think, also, that the same case and the foUowing case in the same volume (Hinson v. Lott, Id. 148) determine the other question raised, and that the statute of Nevada in ques- tion does not violate the constitutional provision conferring upon congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Conceding, for the purpose of the decision, the license fees to be a tax upon the goods sold, there is no dis- crimination against the goods of other states in favor of the products of Nevada; but ail are taxed alike, and under those authorities where there is no discrimination the imposition of the tax is a legitimate exercise of the taxing power by the state. �In Woodruff V. Parham, 8 Wall. 140, the court say: "The case before us is a simple tax on sales of merchandise, im- posed alike upon aU sales made in Mobile, whether the sales be made by a citizen of Alabama or of another state, and whether ����