Turpin v. Burgess
| Decision Date | 05 April 1886 |
| Citation | 6 S.Ct. 835,29 L.Ed. 988,117 U.S. 504 |
| Parties | TURPIN and another v. BURGESS, Collector, etc. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
chas. S. Stringfellow, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Goode, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought to recover from the internal revenue collector of the Third district of Virginia the amount paid by the plaintiffs, from 1869 to 1872, inclusive, for stamps affixed to certain cases of tobacco manufactured by them and intended for exportation. The sum paid for the stamps was 25 cents each. The ground of action relied on by the plaintiffs is that the tax was unconstitutional, being, as contended, repugnant to that clause of the constitution which declares that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' The stamps were required to be affixed by the act of July 20, 1868, (15 St. 157.) By this act an excise tax of 32 cents per pound was imposed on all manufactured tobacco, except smoking tobacco, on which the tax was 16 cents per pound. This tax was required to be paid by purchasing stamps, to be affixed to the packages before the tobacco was allowed to be removed from the manufactory; but tobacco intended for exportation was relieved from the payment of this tax by affixing to each package or box, of whatever size, before removal from the factory, a 25 cent stamp, engraved to indicate the intent to export the same. After being thus stamped, and giving bond according to the regulations of the treasury department, such tobacco might be removed to any export bonded warehouse at some port of entry, and there kept in bond until actually exported. In 1872 the price of the stamp was reduced to 10 cents; and the act was incorporated in this form in section 3385 of the Revised Statutes.
We had occasion to examine the very question raised in this case in Pace v. Burgess, reported in 92 U. S. 372, and were unanimously of opinion that the act requiring the exportation stamp complained of was a valid and constitutional act. The reasons for that decision were given at length in the report of that case, and we see no occasion to modify the views then expressed. The finding of facts (so called) made by the court in the present case, by consent of the parties, (who waived a jury,) does not change the character of the question. Every fact now found was assumed or virtually involved in the former case. But since that decision congress has abolished all charge for the exportation stamp, by an act passed August 8, 1882, entitled 'An act to repeal so much of section 3385 of the Revised Statutes as imposes an export tax on tobacco.' It is argued that the language of this title is a concession by congress that the charge for the stamp was an export tax. This argument admits of several answers. The act was obtained in the interest of the tobacco manufacturers, and was probably proposed by them, or by their counsel, and the expression referred to may have escaped the attention of the members. But if it was intentionally used it would only be the opinion of one congress opposed to that of another; for, of course, it cannot be supposed that the congress which passed the law regarded it as imposing a tax on exports. Besides, an expression of opinion on the part of congress, however much to be respected, is not binding on us. The counsel for the plaintiffs in this case asks us to declare the law unconstitutional, and thereby to declare that the congress which passed it was mistaken in its opinion. With the action of congress in abolishing the charge for the stamp we have nothing to do. That is a matter of pure legislative discretion, and has no bearing on the question.
We are referred to certain expressions in the opinion of the court of the court of appeals of Virginia in the case of Burwell v. Burgess, 32 Grat. 472, indicating that if it were an original question that court would find it difficult to hold that the money paid for the stamps was not a tax. While entertaining a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...alike, and not levied on goods in course of exportation, nor because of their intended exportation * * *.' (Turpin v. Burgess (1886) 117 U.S. 504, 507, 6 S.Ct. 835, 836, 29 L.Ed. 988.) As a tax levied upon a subject related to but nevertheless distinct and separable from articles of export,......
-
Rice Growers' Association of California v. County of Yolo
...here concerned was not a tax on the fungible goods as exports, nor on the privilege of exportation. Thus in Turpin v. Burgess (1886) 117 U.S. 504, 507, 6 S.Ct. 835, 836, 29 L.Ed. 988, it is said: 'But a general tax, laid on all property alike, and not levied on goods in course of exportatio......
-
Armour Packing Co. v. United States
... ... sole purpose of regulating both alike pursuant to the ... commercial clause of the Constitution. Turpin v ... Burgess, 117 U.S. 504, 506, 6 Sup.Ct. 835, 29 L.Ed. 988; ... Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418, 427, 24 Sup.Ct. 383, ... 48 L.Ed. 504 ... ...
-
US Shoe Corp. v. US
...heavy exactions placed upon tobacco sold domestically—was not a tax on exports. See 92 U.S. at 375-76; see also Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 504, 6 S.Ct. 835, 29 L.Ed. 988 (1886) (sustaining, on similar grounds, constitutionality of charge imposed to identify tobacco packages intended for ex......