IMPORTS. Goods or other property im ported or brought into the country from for eign territory. Story, Const. § 949. See U. S. Const. art. 1, § 8 ; 1, § 10 ; Smith v. Turn er, 7 How. (U. S.) 477, 12 L. Ed. 703 ; Mar riott v. Brune, 9 How. (TJ. S.) 619, 13 L. Ed. 282 ; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538.
In a constitutional sense they embrace only goods brought from a foreign country and do not include merchandise shipped from one state to another ; American Exp. Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 146, 25 Sup. Ct. 182, 49 L. Ed. 417.
It may be noted that although the word "imports" as used in the federal tion applies only to goods brought into the United States from a foreign country, and not to such as are transported from one state to another ; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382 (where Miller, J., discusses the subject at large, and the same distinction is emphatically asserted by White, J., in American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538, and was recognized by Day, J., in New York v. Wells, 208 U. S. 14, 28 Sup. Ct. 193, 52 L. Ed. 370) ; yet in many cases the term has been incidentally used by that court with reference to goods transported in to one. state from another ; see Thurlow v. MasSachusetts, 5 How. (U. S.) 504, 12 L. Ed.
256 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 ; 'Bowman v. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700 ; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128 ; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 Sup. Ct. 757, 43 L. Ed. 49 ; Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 Sup. Ct. 132, 45 L..Ed. 224; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 32 Sup. Ct. 137, 56 L. Ed. 253.
To prevent the mischievous interference of the several states with the national com merce, the constitution of the United States, art. 1, § 10, provides as follows: "No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws ; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall be subject to the re vision and control of congress ;" Story, Const. § 1616. Under this section it has been
held that a state law imposing a license tax on importers of foreign liquors was uncon stitutional ; the importer by the payment of the duty purchases the right to dispose of his merchandise as well as to bring it into the country; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., (U. S.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678 ; but the provision against taxing imports by the states does not extend to articles brought from another state, but only to articles imported from for eign countries ; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382 ; Brown v. Hous ton, 114 U. S. 622, 5 Sup. Ct. 1091, 29 L. Ed.
257 ; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538. Imports from foreign countries are not sub ject to state taxation while remaining in the original cases in the hands of the importer, unbroken and unsold ; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419, 6 L. Ed. 678 ; People v. Barker, 155 N. Y. 330, 49 N. E. 940 ; Ger dau v. Davis, 67 N. J. L. 88, 50 Atl. 586 ; State v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 145, 15 South. 10, 49 Am. St. Rep. 318 ; In re Doane, 197 Ill. 376, 64 N. E. 377 ; and while they are in that condition the state cannot impose any tax upon them, as the right to sell without restriction is a necessary inci dent of the right to import without restric tion ; Low v. Austin. 13 Wall. (U. S.) 29, 20 L. Ed. 517 ; Oberteuffer v. Robertson, 116 U. S. 517, 6 Sup. Ct. 462, 29 L. Ed. 706. See Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. (U. S.) 504, 12`L. Ed. 256; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (U. S:) 283, 12•L. Ed. 702; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 299,, 13 L. Ed. 996 ; Nevv,..York v. Miln, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 102, 9 L. Ed. 648.