ware, and Tennessee. The supervisor of Ohio mentioned in this act is evidently the supervisor who had been appointed by the President in pursuance of the act of June 5, 1794, just referred to. This excise on spirits provided by the act of 1792 continued in force until 1802. The customs administrative act of 1790 remained in force, with its prohibition of bringing in goods by land, until 1799, when it was repealed by the act of March 2 (1 Stat., 627). This act made a new division of the whole of the United States, both States and Territories, into districts, with ports of entry and of delivery. Elaborate provisions were made for the subdivision of the six districts of Erie, Detroit. Michelimakenac, Monac, Illinois, and Ohio, into which the Northwest Territory was divided (1 Stat., 638), and a further district was erected— "on the river Mississippi south of the State of Tennessee, which shall include all the waters, shores, and inlets of the river Mississippi and other navigable rivers and waters connected therewith lying within the jurisdiction of the United States and south of the said State." 1 Stat., 639. No duties were imposed by this act, but it was purely an administrative act, for the collection throughout the United States of the tariff then in force. By the provisions of the act of April 6, 1802 (chap. 19, Stat., 145), all the internal-revenue taxes were repealed. Internal-revenue taxes of 1813, 185. The act of July 22, 1813 (3 Stat., 22), divided the various 18 States into collection districts and provided for the assessment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties in the States. This act did not provide for a collection district for the Northwest Territory. By an act passed on August 2, 1813 (chap 56, 3 Stat., 82), entitled "An act making further provision for the collection of internal duties and the appointment and compensation of assessors," provision was made for the collection of all internal-revenue taxes in the Territories. This act provides: "SECTION 2. That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, authorized to divide, respectively, the several Territories of the United States and the District of Columbia into convenient districts for the purpose of collecting the internal duties above spec› fied, and to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a collector for every such district. "SECTION 3. That the several duties laid by the acts entitled 'An act laying duties on the sale at auction of merchandise:' An act laying duty on sugar refined in the United States;' An act laying duties on carriages for the convenience of persons; An act laying duties on licenses to retail dealers in wines, spirituous liquors, and foreign merchandise;' 'An act laying duties on licenses to distillers of spirituous liquors;' 'An act laying duties on notes of banks, bankers, and certain companies whose notes, bonds, and obligations are discounted by banks and bankers, and bills of exchange of certain description,' shall be laid and collected in the several Territories of the United States and in the District of Columbia in the same manner and under the same penalties as is provided by the said acts, respectively." Referring to the acts just quoted in section 3 of the act of August 2, 1813, we find that the act laying duties on sugar (chap. 21, p. 35) pro vides that: "From and after the 1st day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all sugar which shall be refined within the United States," etc. The act laying duties upon sales at auction (chap. 26, p. 44) provides: "That from and after the 1st day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for the use of the United States upon all sales by way of auction, as hereinafter described, which shall be made within the United States." The act laying duties on carriages (chap. 24, p. 40) provides: "That from and after the last day of December next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid the following yearly rates and duties upon all carriages for the convenience of persons," etc. The act laying duties on licenses to distillers (chap. 25, p. 44) provides: "That every person who, on the 1st day of January next, shall be the owner of any still, or stills, or other implements," etc., shall apply to the collector appointed by the act of July 22 for a license, and section 2 prescribes certain license fees. The act laying duties on licenses to retailers of wines, spirituous liquors, etc. (chap. 39, p. 72), provides by section 2: "That every person who, on the 1st day of January next, shall be a retail dealer in wines," etc., shall apply to the collector for the collection district within which he resides for a license, and the fourth section regulates the fees. The act laying duties on the notes of banks, etc. (chap. 53, p. 77), provides: "That from and after the last day of December next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid throughout the United States the sev eral stamp duties following." We have referred to these acts in detail for the purpose of completely refuting any claim which might be made that the internalrevenue taxes provided by these acts were ever collected otherwise than uniformly throughout the entire country. While the act establishing the collection districts in the States was enacted on July 22, and the act establishing the collection districts in the Territories and the District of Columbia was not enacted until August 2, none of these internal-revenue taxes became operative until the 1st of January, 1814. The omission in the act of July 22, 1813 (3 Stat., 22), to provide for the collection of internal revenue in the Territories was probably due to the fact that this act, which did not impose any tax, but was purely an administrative act, provided for the collection of both "internal duties" and direct taxes (Preamble, 3 Stat., p. 22), and directed that separate accounts should be kept of direct taxes and of the internal duties (§ 33, 3 Stat., p. 43). The direct taxes were not laid in the Territories, but they were not required by the Constitution to be uniform, but only to be apportioned H. Doc. 509-51 among the States. They were, however, laid by apportionment in the District of Columbia by the act of February 27, 1815 (3 Stat., 216), by which an annual tax of $19,998. 40 was provided for in the District. This is the act which came before this court in Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wheat., 317, where its validity was upheld. All these internal duties were repealed by the act of December 23, 1817 (3 Stat., 401), and no other internal duties were enforced until 1862. All the internal duties of that period laid by the acts of 1862, 1864, and 1866 were imposed uniformly in the States, Territories, and District of Columbia. To sum up the results of an examination of these early statutes, we may say that it was the established practice that all "duties, imposts, and excises" should be “uniform throughout the United States." HENRY M. WARD, For Plaintiffs in Error. JANUARY 7, 1901. J. G. CARLISLE, Counsel. |