Gunther v. Mayor of Baltimore

Miller., J., delivered tire opinion of tire Court. This suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover certain taxes for the years 1873, 1874, 1875 and 1876. The case was submitted to the Court below upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears the taxes in question were levied in pursuance of the general revenue laws of the State, upon the defendant’s interest in certain vessels. It is agreed that, during these years, the defendant was a citizen of Maryland and resided in the City of Baltimore; that he was part owner of three vessels which were regularly registered as vessels of the United States, under the Act of Congress of December 31st, 1792, in the office of the Collector of Customs at Baltimore, the home port of the vessels, and the domicil and usual place of residence of their acting and managing owners; that under the powers conferred by its charter, the City of Baltimore, by sundry ordinances passed in these years, imposed an annual tax for general municipal purposes upon all assessable property in the city, and in virtue thereof, and upon the basis of assessments previously made and then in force, the several shares, interests and proportions belonging to the defendant and other part owners residing in Baltimore, in each, of these vessels, were taxed by the City as assessable, and assessed property in the said city belonging to such resident part owners respectively.

There is nothing in the record to show that this assessment was made, or the tax levied with reference to the tonnage of the vessels, but on the contrary they appear to have been valued and assessed in the same manner as other personal property or chattels would have been valued and assessed under the same laws. The general assessment laws then in force subjected to assessment and taxation, among other property, “ the interest or proportion in all ships or other vessels, if registered in a port of Maryland, whether in or out of port, owned by residents of this ⁴⁵⁹ State.” Code, Art. 81, sec. 2; Act of 1874, ch. 483, sec. 2. It was further agreed that these vessels, during that time, were employed continuously and exclusively in foreign commerce, and seldom remained in the port of Baltimore more than ten weeks in any one year; that they have paid to the United States the usual tonnage duties prescribed by sec. 4219 of the Revised Statutes, and have also been compelled to pay to American consular officers in foreign ports, tbe fees allowed by the rates prescribed by the President, as required by law, and published in the regulations and circulars of the State Department. Now it is contended that the tax so levied cannot be •sustained because it is in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which confer upon Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and forbid the States, without the consent of Congress, to lay any duty of tonnage, or any imports, or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws.

The general question thus presented is not a new one, but has arisen, and been considered and adjudicated by the Federal and State Courts in many cases. In Howell vs. The State, 3 Gill, 14 , our predecessors, in a very able opinion, declared that property in ships or vessels belonging to a citizen of this State, living within her territory, subject to her jurisdiction and protected by her laws, is part of his capital in trade, and like other property is the subject of State taxation. In that case a State law precisely like that now in force, subjecting to taxation the interest or proportion in all ships or other vessels, whether in or out of port, owned by persons resident of the State, was sustained and held not to be in violation of, or in conflict with any provision of the Federal Constitution. That decision has more than once been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Very recently in Transportation Co. vs. Wheeling, 9 Otto, ⁴⁶⁰ 275 , where the question again arose, the Court reviewed all the authorities, and, without dissent, affirmed the law as stated in Howell vs. The State. The doctrine announced hy the Supreme Court in that case is, that while taxes levied by a State on ships or vessels as instruments of commerce and navigation are