ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown, Shiras, Jr., White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
It might fairly be contended that, upon the facts found by the special verdict, the defendant was not guilty of engaging in the business of delivering pictures without a license, within the purview of the ordinance in question. But as the Supreme Court of North Carolina has held otherwise we must accept that conclusion as a question of construction belonging to that court. Our task is to determine whether the ordinance, as so construed, is invalid as an attempt to interfere with and to regulate interstate commerce, and can be speedily performed, for
we think the case falls within previous decisions of this court on this subject.
Such decisions are numerous, but we do not deem it necessary to refer to but a few of them.
The subject was elaborately considered in Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489. The case was brought here on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which had held valid a statute of that State, by which it was enacted that "all drummers and all persons not having a regular licensed house of business in the taxing district, offering for sale or selling goods, wares, or merchandise therein by sample, shall be required to pay to the county trustee the sum of $10 per week, or $25 per month, for such privilege, and no license shall be issued for a longer period than three months." Robbins, the plaintiff in error, was a citizen and resident of the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and was convicted of having offered for sale articles of merchandise belonging to a firm in Cincinnati without having procured a license. In his discussion of the case Mr. Justice Bradley stated the following principles, as already established by this court: The Constitution of the United States, having given to Congress the power to regulate commerce, not only with foreign nations, but among the several States, that power is necessarily exclusive whenever the subjects of it are national in their character, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation; that where the power of Congress to regulate is exclusive, the failure of Congress to make express regulations indicates its will that the subject shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions, and any regulation of the subject by the States, except in matters of local concern only, is repugnant to such freedom; that the only way in which commerce between the States can be legitimately affected by state laws is when, by virtue of its police power, and its jurisdiction over persons and property within its limits, a State provides for the security of the lives, health and comfort of persons and the protection of property, and imposes taxes upon persons residing within the State or belonging to its population, and upon vocations and employments pursued therein, not directly connected with foreign or interstate commerce, or with some other
employment or business exercised under authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and imposes taxes upon all property within the State, mingled with and forming part of the great mass of property therein; but that, in making such internal regulations, a State cannot impose taxes upon persons passing through the State, or coming into it merely for a temporary purpose, especially if connected with interstate or foreign commerce; nor can it impose such taxes upon property imported into the State from abroad, or from another State, and not become part of the common mass of property therein; and no discrimination can be made, by such regulations, adversely to the persons or property of other States; and no regulations can be made directly affecting interstate commerce.
Upon these established principles the conclusion was reached that the state statute in question was invalid, and the following observations are pertinent to the question before us:
"It would not be difficult, however, to show that the tax authorized by the State of Tennessee in the present case is discriminative against the merchants and manufacturers of other States. They can only sell their goods in Memphis by the employment of drummers and by means of samples; whilst the merchants and manufacturers of Memphis, having regular licensed houses of business there, have no occasion for such agents, and, if they had, they are not subject to any tax therefor. They are taxed for their licensed houses, it is true; but so, it is presumable, are the merchants and manufacturers of other States in the places where they reside; and the tax on drummers operates greatly to their disadvantage in comparison with the merchants and manufacturers of Memphis. And such undoubtedly was one of its objects. This kind of taxation is usually imposed at the instance and solicitation of domestic dealers, as a means of protecting them from foreign competition. And in many cases there may be some reason in their desire for such protection. But this shows in a still stronger light the ...