State v. Crawford, Mcneill & Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1859
• Citation: 39 Tenn. 460
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE v. CRAWFORD, MCNEILL & CO.

39 Tenn. 460

THE STATE

v.CRAWFORD, MCNEILL & CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April Term, 1859.

FROM HENRY.

This was an agreed case, submitted to the court at the January term, 1859, Fitzgerald, J., presiding. Judgment was rendered for the defendants. The State appealed.

Sneed, Attorney-General, and B. F. Lamb, for the State; A. McAmpbell, for the defendants.

Caruthers, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This agreed case, between the clerk of the County Court of Henry, on the part of the State, and the defendants, who are merchants in that county, raises the question of the liability of a merchant to pay a tax for selling things manufactured in this State.

The statute is, that “salt, sugar, coffee, spun cotton, garden seeds, iron, and articles manufactured in this State, may be sold without paying a tax; but these article are not exempt in the hands of any person who sets himself up as a merchant or grocer.” Code, sec. 545.

The Constitution provides that “no article manufactured of the produce of this State shall be taxed, otherwise than to pay inspection fees.” Article 2, sec. 30.

But in section 28 of the same article, it is provided that “the Legislature shall have power to tax merchants, pedlars, and privileges, in such manner as they may from time to time direct.”

In the exercise of this power, the Legislature at one time taxed the merchant a specific sum for the privilege of selling merchandise, without regard to the extent of his business; but afterwards the more just and equitable mode was adopted, to graduate the amount of the tax by the quantity of goods sold. And the question made in this case, is, whether, in this estimate of sales made by them, iron, castings, spun cotton, and other things manufactured in this State, must be included, and in that way enhance the amount of the tax to be paid by them. This involves the construction of the sections of the Constitution above cited.

The power to tax merchants in such manner as they may think proper, is expressly given in section 28, and they have “directed” that the “manner” shall be to settle the amount to be paid by the extent of their business, or the quantity of goods, wares, and merchandise sold in each year, including things made or produced in this State. Is this prohibited by section 30? We think not. This is not a tax upon the article, but the occupation of the merchant. There would have been no question if the old mode of taxing the occupation of the merchant a gross sum had been continued. But what difference can it make? The change is only as to the “man...