*1 Maryland. v. Ward Statement of the case. tions to order a reference to ascertain the damages, decree that libellants recover Hammond. Maryland. Maryland required A statute traders within resident the State to take pay out licenses and to therefor certain sums regulated by sliding $150, $12 according scale of from as their stock in might vary trade $40,000. $1000 to more than The statute also penal made it a any person being offencein a permanent resident State to sale, sell, sale, offer for or for expose within certain limits'in the wares, any goods, whatever, or merchandise agricultural other than limits, products articles in Maryland, manufactured within said by card, sample, either or other specimen, printed or written catalogue, trade-list or whether such be maker or manufac- person n not, do, obtaining turer thereof or first for a license so to Held, license (to be renewed a sum of to be annually) paid. $300 was That the imposed statute a discriminating tax non-resident traders trading mentioned, in the limits pro that it tanto was . to the Federal Constitution.and void. to the Court of ofthe State of Error Appeals Maryland;, the case this : being
The Constitution of the United in one thus place, ordains: Sec. 2. The citizens of each State be en- IY. shall
“Article to all titled and immunities of citizens in the several privileges States.”
Also thus, another : n “Article I. Sec. 8. The have regu- late commerce the several States.” among
With, these provisions force, as fundamental law,-the two Maryland passed' laws general regulating n subject of traders.* One part enactment regulated n .tradersresident within the State, and another sought reg Law, Code 56, of Public article title License.” Doc. "Ward
Statement of the case. ulate traders so to do resident, but seeking busiuess. there, both parts seeking required party trading to take out and trade license. were These the sections *2 to relating Maryland.
Traders resident or 41. No within this State other than the person grower, § maker, chattels, or shall or manufacturer, barter sell goods, wares, merchandise, or a license first obtaining manner herein prescribed. 42. When or shall any person, body
§ politic pro- corporate, to sell or barter pose mentioned in the sec- anything preceding tion or except spirituous fermented he shall liquors, apply the clerk of the Circuit Court of the in which he county reside for a license therefor. 43. such Upon application, state applicant
§ clerk, oath', the amount of his stock of goods,-generally kept on hand or the by him, concern in which he is at the engaged, season sale. principal If
| 44. the amount of the stock in applicant’s trade does or will $1000, not not exceed the sum of shall be demanded $12 -and received said clerk by from said before applicant granting’ the license. $1,000 If 45. mors than $15,000, and not $16. more than
§ sum of “ “ “ “ “ 1,500 2,500, §46. 18. “ “ “ « “ 2,500 . 4,000, §47. 22. “ “ “ “ 4,000 6,000, §48. 30. “ “ “ “ 6,000 8,000, §49. 40. “ “ O “ 8,000 ‘b 10,000, 50. 50. § “ “ « “ “ 10,000 51. 15,000, 65. § “ “ “' “ 15,000 20,000, 52. 80. § “ “ “ “ “ 20,000 30,000, 53. 100. § “ “ “ “ “ 30,00.0 40,000, 54. 125. § “ “ 40,000 or 40,000, 55. over § 150. the sections These were relatiug Maryland. not Traders resident oe 37. No resident person, being permanent this § sale, offer for or sell, sale, "shall within expose Baltimore, limits of the city wares, or any goods, merehan-
(cid:127) of the case. Statement articles whatever, other than products disc agricultural limits of within Maryland, manufactured or by-writ- card, either or specimen, city, sample, said such whether person trade-list or catalogue, ton or printed obtain- not, without or manufacturer thereof or first the maker a license so to do. ing be issued to the or copartner- 38. Such license shall person
§ and shall $300, on the for the same payment ship applying run one from date. year city No whether a resident or not person,
§ therein, shall suffer or Baltimore, permit and licensed sell resident of State Maryland, not a any-person permanent or or the or any person persons agent representative not in his em- residents of the State of'Maryland, regular wares, sell of merchandise service, or goods,' ploy written-or trade- card, or other or printed sample, specimen, or at under his name or the name of his firm partnership, list store, in his or used warehouse occupation counting-room, *3 his of as business. place qf 40. the three either Any person last offending against § sections, indictment, shall be liable to and con- upon
preceding $400 viction shall be fined not less than for each offence. The reader will observe that the which thus price highest ever called trader resident within the was on to State while trader there, $150, in order.to was trade- every pay, resident, within the was who to trade not so sought twice that sum. charged law, one
In this state of and constitutional statutory of New Ward, a and citizen of the United States Jersey, harness, within horse resident New sold sample, Jersey, and license the limits of Baltimore, contrary was lie statute of the above-quoted Maryland. accordingly, act of the Maryland for validity purpose having Criminal Court Balti- indicted'iu the tested, judicially indictment on. The contained more, facts being agreed and the other for to sell counts, oue for two offering selling than horse wit, agricul- sample harness) goods (to The manufactured Maryland. tural articles products was was uneonstitu- defence that statute of-Maryland 42J Dec. non-resident trader. Argument the two clauses of Constitution void, already tioual those to which the relied Maryland quoted being 'The Criminal Court was statute repugnant. adjudged This valid and fined Ward statute $400. judgment being the ease was affirmed in the Court of Appeals Maryland now here for review. Moarts, M.
üfr. W. error: plaintiff for The I. State is_ regulation attempted by authority flatly to the clause of the'Constitution which declares repugnant “ the citizens of each entitled to all privi- and immunities several It States.” of..citizens the. leges is a direct discrimination between citizens of Maryland citizens other States in of an exten- respect ordinary brauch mercantile sive dealing.
1. It makes which is lawful within State of Mary- for all land resident unlawful therein, persons citizens of other unless conditions, onerous imposed its'own citizens, or resident within it. -upon persons 2. It refusal to to their punishes submit conditions by indictment fine. It makes the discrimination rest fact very aloue determines, ease of citizens of the United a
Státes, whether is or is person citizen of one State .not another, wit, permanent residence ain State. The provisions act, II. application below, case the defendant of commerce regulation States,” between and of that nature to on their face to that as intrusted to power, 'the Constitution.
(cid:127) It is indeed the doctrine of this court that this clause of does the Constitution not exclude all State occupation by of covered it, the. ground absence of legislation by within the by of legislation premises State such a But legislation.* State is regulation by.a here Gilman Wallace, 3 Philadelphia, 713; of Crandall v. State Nevada , 6 Id. 42. Waiíd
Argument State. a of the manner in which by attempted,; regulation —a within it carried on citizens of other trading and in introduced States, of merchandise to be from respect States, other the main affirmative of power regula- —touches active tion between the States. The ordinary commerce with the. is incon- deposit general government with suck a State, sistent and the absence authority a to declaration that equivalent legislation, Congress direct and active trade in commodities between the this remain free from regulation. recent cases iu this' court seem to The assume thatif of-State taxation therein, subject and‘regulation., presented had been of' commerce, of would complained legislation - have been State.* beyond authority the. Jones, Mr. I. D. Attorney-General State Maryland, contra: I. The statute does not violate that of the Con- provision stitution which declares that the citizens of- each State shall be entitled to all and immunities of citi- privileges zens of the several States.”
There in the law which" or restrains nothing prohibits non-resident merchants, manufacturers;- traders their or. here and agents, them bringing goods selling the same mode, under the same license, as residents of the State. A however, has custom, with manu- up grown facturers in the cities and large manufacturing sending agents States and cities with through samples, or lists of their or, retail goods,'and wholesale selling by quantities large merchandise. It is thus-sold free front the local taxation, which affects like in the hands of resident traders. Such sales runners course ar.e great detriment to the trade of resident traders, who take out licenses, rent, and. are to local subjected taxes. The tax is, therefore, a tax particular business trade, car- ried on in a mode particular within the limits of the State * Paul v. Virginia, Wallace, 168; Massachusetts, Liverpool Ins. Co. v. 567; 10 Id. Ducat v. Chicago, Id. 410. *5 Dec. Maryland. 423 "Ward of the
Opinion court. class of and not tax upon by'a particular persons, into the either from or merchandise State foreign imported countries or other States. The doctrine contended would com- in error non-resident plaintiff give “ traveller, runner,” mercial over superior advantages trader. .. regular n law is in conflict with act II. The not of Congress “ The commerce the several^ States.” regulating among has been considered and as a concurrent treated power, at-o certain' ever extent, since power, adoption Constitution of the like States; and the concurrent United of taxation and the States exercise powers bankruptcy, it in cases where has its dormant state.”* left it in Congress There no same sub being regulation upon Congress the statute is as a not void commerce. ject, regulation is, law short, III. The license of the part system Licenses a mode certain of taxation Maryland. business and within the carried on occupation^ it raises revenue to it is its whereby government; support a law to contracts in a mode of traffic regulate particular within its own of the exercise State’s passed territory, con- regulate all'persons, occupations, property, tracts, within its in matters transactions, limits, own to the State prohibited the Constitution of United or not States, in cases subject regulation by Congress, ’ concurrent of. powers, act regulated by made in of the pursuance Constitution, and with law in conflict.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the court. opinion Power re-examine final courts of the State judgments in criminal rendered prosecutions, well as those rendered in civil suits, conferred it when Supreme Couyt that the Was appears court rendered judgment highest of law in which a decision in had, the-case could be v. The Peters, Willson Blackbird Creek 2Co., 245; Cooley v. Marsh Howard, The 12 Wardens; Nevada, Board 299; Wall Crandall v. ace, 85 [Sop. opinion.
Restatement ease that there was drawn in of a statute question validity of a its State, on the ground being repugnant Constitution of the United and that the decision *6 the was in favor State court of the statute.* validity
Persons not residents in the are permanent pro- hibited laws for the from .by Maryland selling, offering district, sale, or for a certain within sale, exposing State, whatever, other than any goods products agricultural and articles in the State, card, manufactured either by or other or written or trade- sample, specimen, priutod list or whether such be the maker or catalogue, person not, manufacturer or without first a license so to obtaining Licenses the do. authorities of may granted by proper the State for that the three hundred purpose, payment .on dollars, run one date.” year
Both aud residents non-residents of that district are also forbidden to suffer or not a permit any person, permanent resident of the and not in State, their regular employment service, to sell or in that under name their any goods way name the or or at their firm, store, warehouse, of business. place either of those
Offenders made prohibitions and, indictment, liable to conviction, be fined upon hundred nor than four more than less six hundred dollars each for offence.† defendant, is a citizen
Ward, of New aud not Jersey, a resident of and the record permanent Maryland, .shows he, on the therein named, at within day place district, sold to the therein persons prohibited named, “by to wit, certain other than specimen, by sample,” agri- cultural or articles manufactured in the products State,' first license so to he do, aud that was obtaining those indicted for acts criminal court-, was proper therein and pleaded to the arraigned indictment. guilty from the of not is the further plea Apart guilty statement Large, 1868, at Acts, Stat. Sessions p. 786. † Dec.
Opinion of the court. defendant himself record, “puts the act court here, according Assembly judgment and that the in such eases made for provided,” attorney the State doth the like. of fact been
All matters sub-' parties having agreed, case to the end that the court, judgment mitfed of the court whether the statute obtained, might not constitutional and State was was valid. Judgment was and the rendered for the criminal court sentenced (cid:127) the defendant a fine four dollars, hundred costs, below, court appeal, affirmed judg- ment. constitutional, as the State law was that de-
Adjudged had a do, he sued out a cision, defendant, into writ removed the record this court error, re-examination. *7 the to commerce possesses regulate among as well as with States commerce nations,
the several foreign also that the citizens the-Constitution of each and provides to be entitled all and immunities of privileges and States, in the several the defendant contends citizens in its consideration, statute of the State under the prac- that to both of those provisions tical operation, as it either works a Constitution, complete prohibition the from the oilier in to be sold commerce goods district, within the limits of the described or at sample an in and onerous discrimination creates favor unjust least the State the in statute, citizens enacting respect the otherwise lucrative branch of interstate- to extensive an to the citizens of that if State, commerce, by securing market, of the control important very exclusive special the burdensome, exemption and immunities by privileges exactions the aud onerous imposed citi- requirements, in desirous the other States same engaging zens in that district. pursuits mercantile in in show behalf made, argument, Attempt does not make statute such that the State, question any "Ward v.-
Opinion court. discrimination tlie citizens of the States, as is the defendant; that the supposed by citizens State are in fact subjected same substantially requirements exactions as are the citizens of other imposed upon but it is too clear in a that argument, judicial opinion, the articles of the code referred to as establishing theory do not nor do it coun- support proposition, they any give tenance whatever. Those enactments forbid resident traders, other thau the maker, or manufacturer, to barter or grower, or chattels without first sell a'license in obtaining the manner therein also out prescribed, they point taken to obtain steps it, what he applicant must state his for that application purpose.
(cid:127)Small traders, whose stock hand at on generally kept season of sale does not exceed thousand dol- principal one and are lars, or fermented engaged selling spirituous are for the license sum óf twelve liquors, required pay dollars. If more thau one thousand and not more dollars, than fifteen hundred dollars, -to they required pay of fifteen dollars, and so on .sum ten other through grada- the last of tions, the sum requires applicant of one hundred and where his dollars, stock fifty generally at the hand season of sale exceeds kept principal forty thousand dollars, which is the made of exaction largest resideut trader, hot the sale or fer- of spirituous engaged mented one set of the with liquors. Compare regulations aud comment is as the other, comparison unnecessary, shows to a demonstration that statute in does question discriminate in citizeus favor of the articles of the finds no from the opposite theory support *8 code which forbid resident traders from.bartering selling' license for or chattels without first obtaining therein as purpose, prescribed. taxes to and collect reach sub- every power lay may over which the unrestricted extends, the State
ject, power the but States without consent of cannot, the. Congress, lay ’ or duties on except any imposts imports exports what for their be inspection may absolutely necessary executing Dec.
Opinion court. of the laws; lay nor eau the consent Congress, they, from are they expressly prohibited any duty tounage, the Constitution. so doing to States
Implied prohibitions power restricting which are as eifectual to and collect taxes also exist, lay are as those which States end Undoubtedly express. within the value, tax every subject sovereignty to the as mere citizens private property, belonging taxation the instruments does extend to but power.of Federal nor to the means constitutional government, to into execution employed by Congress carry powers in Federal conferred Constitution.* an to tax for as much State purposes Power exclusive as the and collect .to to taxes States power lay power defence and the common debts-and for provide gen- pay is an welfare United States exclusive power eral are certain however, to subject, prohibitions Both Congress. but all other restrictions, and respects they supreme each possessed entirely independent powers government and taxes,-duties, collect of the other. lay Congress may excises, to the debts and and provide imposts, direct defence and but taxation welfare, common general n must the several to States according apportioned among and all duties, and ex- respective numbers, imposts, their must be uniform. cises State cannot
Articles to subjected exported nor is it tax or for tax the duty, competent Congress courts, salaries of the of the State as the exercise of judges to the admitted such courts, create for appoint judges, provide to those prohibitions restric- compensation. Subject character, of a like tions, others power Congress taxes, duties; excises, and collect imposts, lay pay. common debts and defence provide general but is without welfare, limitation, powers granted case exclusive of similar are not every powers McCulloch, Wheaton, Maryland, *9 428 Ct Maryland. Ward v.
Opinion of the court. States, in 'the unless where the Constitution has so existing or where the nature of the provided, the power granted, terms which the is made, are of character to show grant that State would be legislation uppn subject to the Federal or that the framers of the grant, Constitution intended that the should be power exercised exclusively by Congress.
Outside of the prohibitions, con express implied, tained in Federal Constitution, of the States power to tax for'the of their own is support coexten governments sive with the within their unrestricted subjects sovereign which shows power, conclusively power tax may be exercised same at the time and the same subjects the United private' by States and property without Such a inconsistency exists repugnancy. power United States virtue of an express grant the debts and purpose; among things, pro paying common defence and welfare; and it viding general exists States for the own support govern-, because ments, restriction they possessed power the Federal before Constitution was and still retain adopted, (cid:127) so far as the it, except prohibited or restricted that instrument.* as the States do, to tax for the
Possessing, sup- of their own it follows that port governments, may they enact reasonable for the collection of regulations provide taxes levied for that with the purpose, inconsistent commerce, nor power Congress regulate repuguant the laws the same Rea- passed by subject. sonable for the collection of such taxes regulations may whether the taxed passed by property belougs non-residents; residents or Con- and, absence of any same no doubt legislation upon subject, gressional entertained that not in such if discrimi- regulations, way the citizens of other States, nating against upheld valid; but doubts entertained whether the very grave Ogden, Wheaton, 199; Louisiana, Howard, Gibbons v. Nathan 8 Dec. of the court.
Opinion does not embrace elements of statute question regulation Constitutiou, even if it be admitted not warranted by *10 left that is act of Con- the untouched subject wholly any by gress.
Excise-taxes levied a State commodities not pro by upon duced to considerable extent the citizens of the State any by so excessive and iu be to the may, unjust respect perhaps, as of the other States to that of the citizens violate provision even Constitution, has not upon though Congress legislated it is that but to decide precise subject; any necessary the case the court, those before as the court- questions is of-the that the statute in unhesitatingly opinion question is to the second the of the section of fourth article Constitutiou, that the citizens each State provides whidh entitled to and immunities of citizens shall be privileges in the several States.* is in those be cases, it conceded
Taxes, by may imposed made whether the State, all sales within the goods State or of tax, of the State the sold were imposing produce uniform; State, tax is but some provided imposed at the same time decides cases a tax court both commodities of the citizens discriminating -would inconsistent w'ith the other Union and that the law of the Federal Constitution, provisions such tax would be unconstitutional invalid. imposing called name is a what it tax exaction, be, Such an sold, or commodities the seller must add upon the-goods sum to compensate charged to price consumer which must be the seller license, paid by himself; and in either event the amount is equiva charged tax lent a direct to commodities.† as the exaction upon persons permanent Imposed not. it is to that the tax- possible deny residents with that the could hope proposition discriminating cases have arisen in which the court. Few sustained by Lott, Wallace, Parham, 139; Hinson v. 8 Ib. 161. 8 v. Woodruff Wheaton, Maring, Keyes, 3 444; People v. Maryland, Brown † "Ward Opinion of the court. this has court found it to necessary apply guaranty ordained in the clause of the Constitution considerat under ion.* will not be made define the Attempt words privileges and immunities,” or specify rights they intended to secure and protect, beyond be neces what may to the sary decision of the case before the court. Beyond doubt those words are words of mean very comprehensive but it will be sufficient to ing, say clause plainly secures and unmistakably of a citizen protects of one into Other pass State of the Union for purpose lawful commerce, trade, or busi engaging mole.station; ness without acquire personal property;- estate;.to take hold real maintain actions in the courts State; and to be taxes or exempt any higher excises than are the State own imposed its citizens.† *11 as the
.Comprehensive the States is to and' power lay collect taxes and excises, it is nevertheless clear, judg ment court, that cannot be' exercised to power extent in manner forbidden any ; the Constitution inasmuch as the Constitution that the citizens provides each State shall be entitled to privileges immunities of citizens in the several States, it follows that the defendant sell, or oiler lawfully, might within -expose sale, district described which the indictment, any goods residents permáoent of the State sell, or offer might for sale in district, that expose to being subjected tax or excisé- than that any exacted law of such higher permanent residents.‡
Grant that the States taxes may impose discriminating citizens of other States, it will against the soon.be found that the conferred inter- power upon Congress regulate state commerce is of value, no as the unrestricted Howard, Elliott, Conner v. 18 593. Limits, Cooley on 16; Constitutional Maryland, Wheaton, Brown v. 12 † . 449 al., Missouri, ; State v. North et Wright, 27 467 Fire Department ‡ Smith, 478; Virginia, 8 Wallace, E. D. Paul v. - Dec.
Opinion of the court. tax will more to be efficacious to the States prove promote than which can any inequality regulations pass the Consti- preserve .equality right contemplated by tution the citizens of the several States. Excise among is it taxes, conceded, everywhere imposed by if not sense but it States, should not. discriminating; that of the several States live under people be'forgotten ’ common ordained Constitution, one was to establish the laws of aud which, the trea- justice, Congress, .with ties made is the law of the proper authority, supreme land; and that that law burden, supreme requires equality of and forbids discrimination in State taxation when the power is to the citizens of the applied Inequality States. other as well as the want of burden, in commercial uniformity was one of the of the citizens under regulations, grievances Confederation; and the new Constitution was adopted, . those defects among thiugs, remedy prior system.
Evidence to show that the framers of the Constitution intended remove those evils in the .great government one found of the sections-of the every Constitution already to, referred also in the clause which that no. provides shall be preference given by any commerce or regulation to the revenue of one State over ports those of another, as well as the showing Congress, forbidden to discrimination in make commercial .or revenue enacting to the same view is also Strong support derived regulations. clause in the same section from succeeding Con- vessels stitution, which bound provides to or *12 not be enter, clear, duties obliged in another. as these have been provisions be,
Important supposed value-,- clear that would it is become still they comparatively held it should be that each State less if possesses powel taxes of its in tc support .own levying government the citizens discriminate other State of the every against Union.
Much consideration was to those clauses of the Con- given [Sup.
Opinion of Justice Bradley. in stitution Cases* were Passenger there re they as limitations garded upon power Congress regu late commerce, and as intended to secure entire commercial and also as equality, prohibitions States upon to destroy such equality by legislation conditions prescribing which vessels bound upon from one State to another shall to enter the permitted of another ports State. Congress, n said Grier, Mr. Justice lias commerce regulated by willing
that it shall be free, and it is therefore not left to the discre- tion of each State either a to refuse passage through her or to exact a territory duty to exercise permission a such privilege. in
Viewed the court is of the any light opinion in statute imposes tax question discriminating in the described in manner the district men- persons trading . tioned the indictment, in who are not residents permanent in the and that the statute is State, the Federal Constitution, invalid for that reason.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY:
I concur of the that the act opinion court, of in this Maryland, complained case, legislature discrimi- nates favor of residents and non-residents of the is in violation of the fourth article consequently of the Constitution of the United therefore, pro tanto, void. I am further of that the act opinion But Constitution, clause of the violation commercial commerce confers upon regulate States; and the several it would it so, among although residents the same burden for imposed selling goods a law non-residents. Such would sample imposed the manufactures of the effectually prevent manufacturing other States unless selling t.hey commercial, established houses or sold to resident therein, chose them is, .merchants who to send orders. It fact,
* Howard, 400 to 414. *13 ]Dec. Gompanies Boykin. 870.j Insurance.
Syllabus. duty one upon importation .from another, under the n name of tax. I therefore dissent from any expression which, court opinion, that.such any way, implies a burden, whether in the aof tax or a shape if penalty, made residents and equally upon non-residents, would - constitutional.
Judgment and the remanded cause with direc- reversed, to the tions court below to conform its judgment
To THE OPINION OP THIS COURT. Companie Boykin. s Insurance insurance, aby policy a loss covered an 1. After tbe insured affidavit time, loss, amount, proof circumstances of the accompanying occurred, Held, that a loss had was he was mado whilo insane. ' insanity was a (ij That sufficient for failure to comply excuse with condition of policy such an requiring affidavit. tbe (ii) necessary Thatif affidavit contained information as time, amount', sufficient, loss, and circumstances of the it was though the insured was insane it was when made. $10,000 agreed was policy signed by A for four of whom companies, each Held, liable for .that become one-fourth of the loss to extent. brought against That one action could be them their con- (i) (cid:127) sent; charging separate declaration promises pray- ing separate judgment. finding verdict that the That defendants did assume in manner (ii) alleged, assessing and form as in declaration the whole . $10,000, damages a’good at was verdict such action. haye judgment That rendered such verdict should been (iii) defendant for one-fourth against .damages, each costs, joint jointly judgment them that a agaihst them all sum was on whole erroneous and should reversed. court, this awarding tiovo,must,. That instead of a venire de (iv) facias section, the-, Act, Judiciary under the 24th of tho well as error, law-powers common a court of render judgment ought Circuit Court to have rendered" "that verdict.. vol. xir.