Pace v. Burgess

by Joseph P. Bradley

United States Supreme Court

92 U.S. 372

Pace  v.  Burgess

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The question raised in this case was, whether the charge for the stamps required to be placed on packages of manufactured tobacco intended for exportation was a tax or duty on exports within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.

Mr. William P. Burwell and Mr. C. S. Stringfellow for the plaintiff in error.

The constitutional provision that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State 'absolutely prohibits Congress from imposing a pecumiary charge on them, whether it consists of a tax or duty, or is laid in the form of excises or imposts; and it is immaterial whether or not the professed object be to identify and separate the articles which are intended for export or to prevent fraud.

It has been insisted, however, that these charges are only for the regulation of trade, and are not a tax or duty for the purpose of revenue. This is entirely immaterial. In the constitutional convention, an amendment proposing to insert, after 'duty' in the existing provision, the words 'for the purpose of revenue,' was rejected by a vote of eight States to three. Madison Debates, p. 456.

The asserted fact, that it was not the intention of Congress to give the character of an export tax to the money exacted by the law in question, is entitled to no weight. Their constitutionality cannot be determined by such intention. In Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 49, the articles imported were not taxed, but the importer was required to pay for a license to sell them. No one intimated that the legislature of Maryland designed to regulate the foreign commerce in which her citizens were engaged. It was contended, however, that the State had an undoubted right to tax the occupation of all persons within her limits; but this court held that this 'was but varying the form without varying the substance of the thing prohibited.' So, in this case, the purchase of the required revenue-stamps by the plaintiff in error at the time the officer made the entry is but the purchase of the privilege of exporting, and is equivalent to taking out a license and paying the United States therefor. The practical result is the same as if a tax or duty was specifically laid upon each exported package of manufactured tobacco.

Almy v. State of California, 24 How. 169, is another case bearing fully on the case at bar. This court held that the California statute was clearly within the terms of the prohibition on the States in regard to the subject of exports. If, therefore, it was an unconstitutional exercise of power in a State to levy a tax on a bill of lading, which the court regarded as an inseparable incident to a shipment abroad, how much more would it have regarded a stamp-tax laid directly on the article about to be exported! Chief Justice Taney stated, that, if the stamp had been required to be placed on the packages of gold dust, every one would see at a glance that such a tax would be repugnant to the prohibition. Yet that is exactly what the acts of Congress in question have required in regard to the exportation of this tobacco, although a much more stringent prohibition is imposed on that body than on the States.

The amount required to be paid for the stamp is wholly unimportant in determining the question submitted. It is one of constitutional power.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes