State v. Smithson
Decision Date | 12 October 1891 |
Parties | The State v. Smithson, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court. -- Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge.
Affirmed.
Craig McCrary & Craig for appellant.
(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.
John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.
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.
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:
On this agreed statement of facts the matter came up for trial before Judge Burgess, of the circuit court at Milan, Missouri, on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1889, and defendant was fined $ 50. From this judgment he has appealed to this court on the ground that a constitutional question is involved.
Prior to the year 1877, the first section of chapter 106, 2 Wagner's Missouri Statutes, entitled "peddlers' licenses," was as follows: "Whoever shall deal in the selling of patent or other medicines, goods, wares and merchandise, except books, charts, maps and stationery, which are not the growth, produce or manufacture of this state, by going from place to place to sell the same, is declared to be a peddler." Section 2 provided no person should deal as a peddler without a license, and section 7 fixed the license tax on all peddlers' licenses.
In 1874, Welton was indicted in Henry county, Missouri, for selling goods as a peddler without a license. He claimed that the above-quoted statute was unconstitutional because it discriminated in favor of articles the growth and produce of this state. This court held the law was not in conflict with the constitution of the United States as discriminating in favor of manufacturers of this state. State v. Welton, 55 Mo. 288. But the defendant Welton appealed the cause to the supreme court of the United States, and that court, in 91 U.S. 275, held that a license tax required for the sale of goods is in effect a tax upon the goods themselves; that power was vested in congress to insure uniformity of commercial relations against discriminating state legislation, and that this statute of Missouri was one discriminating against persons dealing in goods and merchandise not the growth or produce of the state, and was in conflict with the power vested in congress to regulate commerce among the states.
In deference, presumably, to this decision of the supreme court of the United States, the statute was amended in 1877, so that it now reads: Section 7211. "Whoever shall deal in the selling of patents, patent rights, patent or other medicines, lightning rods, goods, wares or merchandise except books, charts, maps and stationery, by going from place to place to sell the same, is declared to be a peddler." Section 7212 provides that no person shall deal as a peddler without a license. Section 7217 fixes the license fee for peddling in a cart or other land carriage, $ 20 for six months. Section 7219 fixes a penalty of $ 50 for dealing as a peddler with horse and wagon, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial