17 S.W. 221 (Mo. 1891), State v. Smithson
|Citation:||17 S.W. 221, 106 Mo. 149|
|Opinion Judge:||Gantt, P. J.|
|Party Name:||The State v. Smithson, Appellant|
|Attorney:||Craig, McCrary & Craig for appellant. John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.|
|Case Date:||October 12, 1891|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court. -- Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge.
(1) The power to regulate commerce between citizens of the different states is exclusive, and belongs to congress alone. Welton v. State, 91 U.S. 275; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 127; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 2 Otto, 275; Railroad v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 573; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100; License Cases, 5 Howard, 504. (2) Section 7218 is in contravention of article 1, section 8, of the federal constitution, as to citizens of other states selling in Missouri. Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U.S. 497; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100; Gibbon v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; City v. Pelton, 18 P. 954; State v. Pratt, 59 Otto, 590, and 9 A. 556. (3) S. F. Baker & Son are entitled to sell their goods in Missouri by agent or otherwise without paying a license, and whether domestic commerce is taxed or licensed would make no difference. Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U.S. 497; Corson v. Maryland, 120 U.S. 502; State v. Pratt, 59 Vt. 590; Hardware Co. v. Guire, 2 So. 592; State v. Agee, 3 So. 856; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Bowman v. Railroad, 125 U.S. 465. (4) The right to bring into one state from another an article of commerce is a vested right, and no state can tax it. Lot v. Hinson, 8 Wall. 150; Bowman v. Railroad, 125 U.S. 501; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 447; Railroad v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 573. (5) Such commerce as was carried on by S. F. Baker & Son by I. N. Smithson, the defendant, is not subject to state taxation, even though there be a discrimination between it and domestic commerce. Robbins v. Tax. Dist., 120 U.S. 497; Corson v. Maryland, 120 U.S. 502; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100.
As the question involved in this case was passed upon by this court in the case of State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241, the case will be submitted upon the authority of that case.
[106 Mo. 151]
Defendant was prosecuted upon information before a justice of the peace in Sullivan county, Missouri. The cause was taken to the circuit court and there heard upon the following agreed statement of facts, made by the prosecuting attorney and the counsel for the defendant:
"State of Missouri,] ss.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP