imports

men as well as things cannot, it seems to me, be denied.

Goods or other property imported or brought into a country from foreign territory. Story, Const. § 949. See (U. S.) Const, art. 1, §10; 7 How. (U. S.) 477.

Goods or other property imported or brought into the country from foreign territory. Story, Const. § 949. See y. S. Const, art. 1, § 8; 1, § 10; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (U. S.) 477, 12 L. Ed. 703; Marriott v. Brnne, 9 How. (U. S.) 619, 13 L. Ed. 282; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 600, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538. In a constitutional sense they embrace only goods brought from a foreign country and do not include merchandise shipped from one state to another; American Exp. Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 146, 26 Sup. Ct 182, 49 L. Ed. 417. It may be noted that although the word “Imports” as used In the federal constitution applies only to goods brought into the United States from a foreign country, and not to such as are transported from one state to another; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 same distinction is emphatically asserted by White, J., in American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 600, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538, and was recognized by Day, J., in New York v. Wells, 208 U. S. 14, 28 Sup. CL 193, 62 L. Ed. 370); yet in many cases the term has been incidentally used by that court with reference to goods transported into one state from another; see ThurloW v. Massachusetts, 6 How. (U. S.) 504, 12 L. Ed. 256; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205; Bowman v. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 Sup. Ct 757, 43 L. E<1. 49; Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 Sup. Ct 132, 45 L. Ed. 224; Williams V. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 32 Sup. Ct 137, 66 L. Ed. 253. To prevent the mischievous Interference of the several states with the national commerce, the constitution of the United States, art 1, § 10, provides as follows: “No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may he absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exix)rts shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of congress;” Story, Const. § 1616. Under this section it has been held that a state law Imposing a llcen.se tax on importers of foreign liquors was unconstitutional; the importer by the payment of the duty purchases the right to dispose of his merchandise as well as to bring it into the country; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat (U. S.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; but the provl.slon against taxing imports by the states does not extend to articles brought from another state, but only to articles Imported from foreign countries; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 5 Sup. Ct 1091, 29 L. Ed. 257; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sup. Ct 365, 48 L. Ed. 538. Imports from foreign countries are not subject to state taxation while remaining in the original cases In the hands of the importer, unbroken and unsold; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat (U. S.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678; People V. Barker, 155 N. Y. 330, 49 N. E. 940; Gerdan V. Davis, 67 N. J. L, 88, 60 Atl. 686.; State V. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 145, 15 South. 10, 49 Am. St Rep. 318; In re Do^ne, 197 111. 376, 64 N. E. 377; and while they are in that condition the state cannot Impose any tax upon them, as the right to sell without restriction is a nece.ssary incident of the right to import without restriction; Low V. Austin, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 29, 20 L. Ed. 617; Oberteuffer v. Robertson, 110 U. 12 L. Ed. 256; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (U. S.) 2S3, 12 L. Ed. 702; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299, 13 L. Ed. 996; New York v. Mlln, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 102, 9 L. Ed. 648. After the cases, boxes or bal^ In which the goods are shipped are opened and the separate packages contained therein offered for sale, they cease to be “imported articles”; Wynne v. Wright, 18 N. C. 19; and become subject to local taxation; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 Sup. Ct. 976, 44 L. Ed. 1165; after the sale by the importer they lose their distinctive character as Imports and are taxable in the hands of the buyer; Pervear v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 479, 18 L. Ed. 608; Waring v. Mobile, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 110, 19 L. Ed. 842. The original packages of imported goods which cannot be so taxed are the boxes, cases or bales in which the goods are shipped, and not the smaller packages therein contained, although the latter are the packages in which the goods were put up by the manufacturer; May V. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 Sup. Ct. 976, 44 L. Ed. 1165. A tax on auction sales of imported goods in the original packages is invalid; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. Ed. 1015. So a tax on the uncollected price of imported goods was invalid; Gelpi v. Schenck, 48 La. Ann. 1535, 21 South. 115; as is a state law imposing a tax on the tonnage of vessels entering her ports; Inman S, S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 24 L. Ed. 118. But a state tar on the gross receipts of a railroad company, where freights are received partly from another state, is not a tax on imports; Woodruff V. Parham, 8 Wail. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284, 21 L. Ed. 164. An importation is not complete, within the revenue laws, until a voluntary arrival within some port of entry; Arnold v. U. S., 9 Cra. (U. S.) 104, 3 L. Ed. 671; Meredith v. U. S., 13 Pet. (U. S.) 486, 10 L. Ed. 258; The Mary, 1 Gall. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 9.183; but see Perots v. U. S., 1 Pet C. C. 256, Fed. Cas. No. 10,993; and the duties accrue at the time of such arrival; U. S. v. Dodge, 1 Deady 124, Fed. Cas. No. 14,973; but the importation, as between the importer and the government, is not complete as long as the goods remain in the custody of the officers of the customs, and until delivered to the importer, they are subject to any duties on imports which congress may see fit to impose; U. S. V. Benzon, 2 Cliff. 612, Fed. Cas. No. 14,577. ' See Obiqinat. Package. Free human beings are not imports or exports within the meaning of the United States constitution. The words refer only to property. Persons a^ not the subject of commerce and do not fall within the reasonmerce, and of the prohibition on the states against imposing a duty on Imported goods; New York v. Compagnie Genfirale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 69, 2 Sup. Ct 87, 27 L. Ed. 383; but In the Passenger Cases, 7 How. (U. S.) 283, 412, 12 L. Ed. 702, it was held “that the commerce of the United States Includes an intercourse of persons, as well as the Importation of merchandise”; and the “head tax” statutes of New York and Massachusetts were held unconstitutional (so far as appears from the opinions there being no “opinion of the court”) as repugnant both to the commerce clause and that prohibiting the laying of Import duties by the states. It Is the settled construction of the commerce clause that interstate commerce Includes the “movement of persons as well as of property”; Hoke v. U. S., 227 U. S. 308, 33 Sup. Ct. 281, 57 L. Ed. 523, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 906; and the reasoning by which that conclusion is supported would seem to apply equally well to the constitutional safeguards of foreign commerce. Yachts are not imports. See Tonnaoe.

Importations; goods or other property imported or brought into the country from a foreign country,