Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/74

 m EB BUDOLPH. 67 �the goods sold are the produce of that state or some other. There is no attempt to discriminate injuriously against the produets of other states or the rights of their citizens, and the case is not, therefore, an attempt to fetter commerce among the States, or to deprive the citizens of other states of any privilege or immunity possessed by citizens of Alabama. But a law having suoh operation would, in our opinion, be an in- fringement of the provisions of the constitution which relate to those subjects, and therefore void." And in Hinson v. Lott, Id. 152, the court say : "The tax in the case before us, if it were of the character we have suggested, discriminating ad- versely to the produ^cts of ail the other states in f avor of those of Alabama, and involving a principle which might lead to actual commercial non-intercourse, would, in our opinion, belong to that class of legislation, and be forbidden by the clause of the constitution just mentioned. But a careful examination of the statute shows that it is not obnoxious to this objection. A tax is imposed by the previous sections of the same act of 50 cents per gallon on ail whisky and ail brandy from fruits manufactured in the state. In order to coUect this tax every distiller is compelled to take out a license, and to make regular returna of the amount of dis- tilled spirits manufactured by him. In this way he pays 50 cents per gallon. So that, when we come in the light of these earlier sections of the act to examine the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth sections, it is found that no greater tax is laid on liquors brought into the state than those manufactured within it. And it is clear that whereas coUecting the tax of the distiller was supposed to be the most expedient mode of securing its payment, as to liquors manufactured within the state, the tax on those who sold liquors brought in from other states was only the eomplementary provision necessary to make the tax equal on aU liquors sold in the state. As the eaect of the act is such as we have described, and it institutea no legislation which discriminates against the produets of sis- ter states, but merely subjects them to the same rate of tax- ation which similar articles pay that are manufactured within the state, we do not see in it an attempt to regulate com- ����