14 Ga. 438 Page 114 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)
(Cite as: 14 Ga. 438)
PADELFORD, FAY & Co. plaintiffs in error v.THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITYOF SAVANNAH.Ga. 1854.Supreme Court of Georgia.PADELFORD, FAY & Co. plaintiffs in errorv.THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITYOF SAVANNAH.
January Term, 1854.
[1.] The Ordinance of the City Council of Savannah, “That on the gross amount of sales of allnegroes, goods, wares and merchandise or othercommodity, article or thing sold within thecorporate limits of the city of Savannah, by anyperson or persons whomsoever, upon or for acommission, premium, per centage or other profitcharged or to be charged thereon, or on jointaccount, and when not included in the returns asstock in trade, and whether for cash or credit,between the twenty-fourth day of January, 1842,and the last of April, 1842, inclusive, and annuallythereafter, between the first day of May in each andevery year, and the last day of April in eachsucceeding year, inclusive, there shall be paid bythe person so selling, whether commissionmerchant, broker or agent of any nature or kindwhatsoever, fifty cents on every hundred dollars of the amount of such sales, respectively”, &c., is notunconstitutional, according to the decision of theSupreme Court of the U. S. in
Brown vs. Maryland
[2.] That case is overruled by the
License Cases, in
[3.] And by the
Passenger Cases, in
[4.] And partly by the case of
Groves et al. vs.Slaughter
[5.] The Constitution is to be construed in the sensein which it was understood by the makers of it at thetime when they made it.[6.] This sense is expressed by the four followingpropositions:1. That the Constitution delegated to the GeneralGovernment, or any department thereof, no powerby
, but only delegated such powers as it
2. That it delegated no exclusive power, unless thedelegation was
to be exclusive.3. That it laid no prohibition upon the States, exceptsuch as it specified.4. That the words used in it, if susceptible of moremeanings than one, were used in the meaning whichwas least favorable to the delegation of power, andmost favorable to its retention.[7.] The Supreme Court of Georgia is co-equal andco-ordinate with the Supreme Court of the U. S.;and therefore, the latter cannot give the former anorder, or make for it a precedent.[8.] The four propositions are true, anything said ordone by the Supreme Court of the U. S. to thecontrary, notwithstanding.[9.] Tried by these, the decision in
Brown vs. Maryland
, is unconstitutional.[10.] Tried by these, the Ordinance in question isnot unconstitutional, as against the commercialclause.[11.] Tried by these, it is not against the clausewhich prohibits the State to tax imports.© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Page 2of 518/10/2007http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW7.07&destination=atp&prft=HT...