• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 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.
No. 64.
 January Term, 1854.
*1
[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 
,12
Wheat.
 [2.] That case is overruled by the
 License Cases, in
5
 Howard's R.
 [3.] And by the
Passenger Cases, in
7
 Howard's R.
 [4.] And partly by the case of 
Groves et al. vs.Slaughter 
, 15
Pet.
 [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
implication
, but only delegated such powers as it
expressly enumerated.
 2. That it delegated no exclusive power, unless thedelegation was
said 
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...
 
 14 Ga. 438 Page 214 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)
(Cite as: 14 Ga. 438)
 [12.] The meaning of this clause is-1. That without the consent of Congress, a Statemay tax imports for the purpose of executing herInspection Laws.2. That the net produce of such a tax is for the U. S.
*2
3. That with the consent of Congress a State maytax imports for any purpose.4. That even without the consent of Congress, aState may tax imports for any purpose, subject onlyto a power in Congress to ‘revise’ and ‘control’the Tax Law.5. That the part of the clause giving the ‘net produce’ to the U. S. applies only to Tax Laws forinspection purposes.[13.] Whether the Court is not bound to presumethat this Ordinance was passed for executing anInspection Law, may admit of a doubt.[14.] Admitting it not to have been for inspectionpurposes, yet it is to be presumed that Congress hasconsented to it.[15.] But if Congress has not consented to it, still itis not void, but only subject to be revised andcontrolled by Congress.[16.] If void, it works no wrong to these plaintiffs.Certiorari in Chatham. Application refused byJudge FLEMING, at Chambers, Dec. 21st, 1853.The City Council of the City of Savannah, passedthe following Ordinance: “
 And be it farther ordained 
, that on the gross amount of sales of allnegroes, goods, wares and merchandize, 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 profit,charged 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 24th January, 1842, and the last of April, 1842, and annually thereafter, between 1st May ineach and every year, and the last day of April ineach succeeding year, inclusive, there shall be paidby the person so selling, whether commissionmerchant, trader or agent, of any nature or kindwhatever, fifty cents on every hundred dollars of theamount of such sales respectively”.Padelford, Fay & Co. commission merchants,refused to pay the tax upon goods and merchandizeimported into this State, and sold by them in theoriginal casks and packages, upon commission,upon the ground that the laying of this tax was aviolation of the Constitution of the United States.Upon certiorari before Judge
Fleming
, thisobjection was overruled, and this decision isassigned as error.West Headnotes
Courts 106 97(1)
 106 Courts106II Establishment, Organization, andProcedure106II(G) Rules of Decision106k88 Previous Decisions as Controllingor as Precedents106k97 Decisions of United StatesCourts as Authority in State Courts106k97(1) k. In General. MostCited CasesThe 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.
Courts 106 97(5)
 106 Courts106II Establishment, Organization, andProcedure106II(G) Rules of Decision106k88 Previous Decisions as Controllingor as Precedents106k97 Decisions of United StatesCourts as Authority in State Courts106k97(5) k. Construction of Federal Constitution, Statutes, and Treaties. MostCited CasesThe supreme court of Georgia is co-equal and © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
 
Page 3of 518/10/2007http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW7.07&destination=atp&prft=HT...
 
 14 Ga. 438 Page 314 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)
(Cite as: 14 Ga. 438)
 co-ordinate with the supreme court of the UnitedStates, and not inferior and subordinate to thatcourt, and, therefore, the supreme court of theUnited States has no jurisdiction to make for thecourt of Georgia a precedent as to the constructionof the United States constitution.
Courts 106 391(1)
 106 CourtsThe appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States, conferred by Const. art. 3, § 2,does not extend to the state courts, but is confinedto the inferior courts mentioned in the precedingsection.
Commerce 83 64
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k63 Licenses and Privilege Taxes83k64 k. Mercantile Business inGeneral. Most Cited CasesIf void, it works no wrong to these plaintiffs.
Commerce 83 64
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k63 Licenses and Privilege Taxes83k64 k. Mercantile Business inGeneral. Most Cited CasesBut if Congress has not consented to it, still it is notvoid, but only subject to be revised and controlledby Congress.
Commerce 83 64
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k63 Licenses and Privilege Taxes83k64 k. Mercantile Business inGeneral. Most Cited CasesAdmitting it not to have been for inspectionpurposes, yet it is to be presumed that Congress hasconsented to it.
Commerce 83 64
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k63 Licenses and Privilege Taxes83k64 k. Mercantile Business inGeneral. Most Cited CasesWhether the Court is not bound to presume that thisOrdinance was passed for executing an InspectionLaw, may admit of a doubt.
Commerce 83 74.5(1)
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k74.5 Sales and Use Taxes83k74.5(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesA tax on “sales” is not a tax on commerce, nor aregulation of commerce, within the prohibition of the constitution of the United States.
Commerce 83 74.5(1)
 83 Commerce83II Application to Particular Subjects andMethods of Regulation83II(E) Licenses and Taxes83k74.5 Sales and Use Taxes83k74.5(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesA city ordinance levying a tax on moneys receivedfrom commission sales of merchandise and personalproperty is not unconstitutional on the ground thatwhen applied to goods brought from foreign statesand countries it interferes with interstate commerce,as the tax is on the proceeds of the sale, and not onthe property, and does not attach until by the salethe property has become mingled with the propertyof the state.© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
 
Page 4of 518/10/2007http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?rs=WLW7.07&destination=atp&prft=HT...
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...