State v. Stevenson

• Decision Date: 16 February 1892
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: State. v. Stevenson et al.

14 S.E. 385
109 N.C. 730

State.
v.
Stevenson et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 1892.

Constitutional Law—Taxation of Trades—Interstate Commerce—Uniformity—Discrimination between States.

1. Laws 1891, c. 323, § 22, which provides that "every merchant, jeweler, grocer, druggist, or other dealer" who shall buy and sell goods not specially taxed elsewhere in the act shall, in addition to his ad valorem tax on his stock, pay a license tax "on the total amount of his purchases in or out of the state, " (except purchases of farm products from the producer,) is not repugnant to Const. U. S. Amend. 14, which provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

2. The act, though imposing the tax on purchases "out of the state, " is not repugnant to Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, which gives to congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states, " since the occupation taxed is entirely intrastate.

3. Since the act imposes the tax on purchases "in or out of the state, " it is not repugnant to Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, which provides that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

4. The act is expressly authorized by Const, art. 5, § 3, providing that the general assembly may tax trades, professions, and franchises.

* 5. The act is not repugnant to the principle of uniformity prescribed in Const, art. 5.

Appeal from criminal court, New Hanover county; Meares, Judge.

J. C. Stevenson and J.Allen Taylor were convicted of failing to file for taxation a statement of the total amount of their purchases, as required by Laws 1891, c. 323. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. Rovntree and Geo. Davis, for appellants.

The Attorney General and A. M. Waddell, for the State.

Clark, J. The defendants, merchants residing and doing business in this state, have bought out of the state, and have brought into the state and sold, goods, not being farm products purchased from the producer, and have bought in the state and sold farm products which were not purchased from the producer. They refused to list them under Schedule B, § 22, ¹ of the revenue act; and they contend the act is void and unconstitutional because:

1. "It denies to the defendants the equal protection of the laws. Const. U. S. 14 th

[14 S.E. 386]

Amend. § l."¹ It has been repeatedly held that the fourteenth amendment was not intended to "compel a state to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation, " or "to...