Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Miscellaneous Contracts of subway companies.-A State statute creating a board of commissioners of electrical subways, and requiring all companies to obtain its approval of their plans and specifications before commencing work, and during the progress thereof, to submit to such modifications and regulations as the board may prescribe, is applicable to a company organized under a prior act, though it had previously obtained permission from the city by an ordinance providing minute regulations as to the form, size, and location of the subways, and requiring the work to be done under the supervision of the commissioner of public works, and no substantial right and the obligation of no contract is impaired by the act. New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175. Clause 2.-IMPOSTS AND DUTIES. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. Leading Cases Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Louisiana (156 U. S. 590), where the court said that "The terms "imports' and 'exports' apply only to articles imported from foreign countries or exported to them." Woodruff v. Parham (8 Wall. 123), where it was held that the term "imports" in this sense refers to articles imported from foreign countries into the United States and not to articles imported from one State into another. Low v. Austin (13 Wall. 33), in which the court said: When the importer has so acted upon the thing imported that it has become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of property in the country, it has, perhaps, lost its distinctive character as an import, and has become subject to the taxing power of the State. May v. New Orleans (178 U. S. 508), the "original package" doctrine in connection with imports.1 Nathan v. Louisiana (8 How. 81), establishing the rule that "Before the article becomes an export, or after it ceases to be an import, by being mingled with other property in the State, it is a subject of taxation by the State." See also American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500. See also same subject, pp. 139 and 193. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 2.-Imposts and Duties Turner v. Maryland (107 U. S. 54), in which the court said: It is a circumstance of weight that the laws referred to in the Constitution are by it made "subject to the revision and control of Congress." Congress may, therefore, interpose, if at any time any statute, under the guise of an inspection law, goes beyond the limit prescribed by the Constitution, in imposing duties or imposts on imports or exports. McLean v. Denver, etc., R. Co. (203 U. S. 38), holding that the language "except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws" is not violated by a State inspection law, which applies to goods shipped only from one State to another. Construction and Application In General States can not lay imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary to execute their inspection laws, not because Congress may lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, but because the Constitution expressly provides that no State shall exercise that power without the consent of the Congress. Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 639. The sole limitation upon the taxing power of the State is the inhibition upon duties of tonnage or imposts upon exports and imports. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 29. Application to Persons Inspection laws, and the words "imports or exports" as used in this clause, refer to property and not to persons, and can have no reference to free human beings. People v. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59. Imports and Exports "Imports" within the Constitutional prohibition upon the States against taxing imports means goods from a foreign country. The prohibition does not embrace goods brought from other States, and a tax upon such goods is not invalidated by this clause. The term "imports" being applied to articles brought from foreign countries, e converso the term "exports" is applicable, under this clause, only to goods sent to foreign countries. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123. Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 350. License Cases, 5 How. 594. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148. Case of State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232. Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 628. Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 587. Pittsburgh, etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 600. Dooley v. U. S., 182 U. S. 222. McLean v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 203 U. S. 38. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-27 Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 2.-Imposts and Duties Goods in the lower harbor of Mobile, bought so as to remain. at the risk of the vendor and being entered and the duty secured before transshipment, are imported before purchase, and a tax upon the purchaser is not a tax on imports; but a statute taxing imports as imports on their way to become incorporated with the general mass of property is unconstitutional. So with exports; goods collected at the entrepot are not yet exports nor in process of exportation; exportation does not begin until goods are committed to a carrier for transportation or have started on their ultimate passage to their destination. Waring v. Mayor, 8 Wall. 118. Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 313. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 525. State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 108. In Austin v. Tennessee (179 U. S. 351) the court said: A casual remark, however, made by Chief Justice Marshall in that case (Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419) that "we suppose the principles laid down in this case to apply equally to importations from a sister State," was subsequently considered in Woodruff v. Parham (8 Wall. 123) and was held to have no application to commerce between the States, the court deciding that the term "import," as used in that clause which declares that "no State shall levy any imposts or duties on imports or exports," did not refer to articles imported from one State into another, but only to articles imported from foreign countries into the United States. In that case an ordinance of the city of Mobile, authorizing a tax upon sales at auctions, was held to be applicable to products of States other than Alabama, although the articles were sold in the original and unbroken packages. Whatever primary meaning be indicated by its derivation, the word "export," as used in the Constitution and laws of the United States, generally means the transportation of goods from this to a foreign country. Swan & Finch Co. v. U. S., 190 U. S. 143. State Taxation 1 Definition of "Impost" An "impost" is a tax levied on articles brought into the country; it is not merely a duty on the act of importation but a duty on the thing imported; it is a duty on imported goods and merchandise. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148. Definition of "Duties" "Duties" are defined to be things due and recoverable by law. Applied in its widest signification, the term is hardly less comprehensive than "taxes," and in its most restricted meaning as to customs it is almost the synonym of "imposts." The See same subject, pp. 180, 315, 362, 600, 636, 707, 728, and 745. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 2.-Imposts and Duties prohibition contained in this clause is a limitation on the power of the State to levy taxes. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 445. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 201. Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 639. Object of the Prohibition The object is to protect both vessel and cargo from State taxation while in transit, and it can not be evaded and the same result effected by calling the tax one on the passengers or on the master; the purpose and validity of the statute must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. The prohibition is general and reaches a tax on the sale of the article imported and on the occupation of the importer. Passenger Cases, 7 How. 501. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 269. Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 573. Tax on Sales Sale is the object of importation and is an essential ingredient of that intercourse of which importation constitutes a part, and by the payment of duty the importer purchases the right to dispose of his goods as well as to bring them into the country. The payment of duties includes the authority to sell without the necessity of a State license; so a State law requiring importers to take out a license to sell imported goods is an indirect tax upon imports. A tax on sales of imported merchandise in original packages by brokers and auctioneers is unconstitutional, but a tax on the gross sales of a purchaser from the importer is not a tax on imports. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 447. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 212. Low v. Austin, 13 Wall. 33. Waring v. Mayor, 8 Wall. 122. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 152. Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 478. Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 494. Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 24. Burke v. Wells, 208 U. S. 14. A tax on bills of lading of foreign articles is a tax on imports, and void, and a law requiring a stamp to be affixed to every bill of lading for goods exported is in substance a duty on the goods and is unconstitutional. Where, however, the requirement that an article intended for export shall be stamped merely provides a mode for denoting such intention, it can not be said to impose a duty on exports. Almy v. California, 24 How. 174. Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372. Case of the State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 280. Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Succession Tax' Cl. 2.-Imposts and Duties State statute providing that every person not domiciled within the State, and not being a citizen of any State or Territory in the Union, who shall be entitled as heir, legatee, or donee to the whole or any part of the succession of a person deceased, shall pay a tax to the State of 10 per cent of the value thereof, is not invalid as an attempted imposition of a tax on the exportation of property; but it is merely a condition imposed on the right of an alien to take and hold property within the State. Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490. Wharfage and Other Port or Harbor Charges Pilotage fees or penalties are not imposts or duties within the meaning of this clause. Cooley v. Philadelphia, 12 How. 299. City ordinances for the collection of wharfage held not to conflict with this clause. Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423. Public wharfage charges not applying to vessels carrying products of the State in which they were imposed and claimed to conflict with this clause were held to be imposed in violation of the Constitution. Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 437. Inspection Taxes A tax levied to cover the expenses of inspection is an exception to the constitutional prohibition on the States to lay duties on imports and exports. The collection of the amount necessary to execute State inspection laws is expressly authorized by this clause. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 438. Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 354. The object of State inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced and fit them for articles of commerce, and they are upheld as necessary to promote the interests of commerce. So far as such laws operate on articles for export they are generally executed on land before the articles are put on board; and so far as they operate on imports they are generally executed on articles already landed. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203. State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204. Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 488. An inspection law may require every hogshead of tobacco intended for export to be brought to a State warehouse to be inspected and branded and to pay charges for storage and inspection. A State law providing for the inspection of imported See same subject, pp. 319, 713, and 729. |