After the cases, boxes or bales in which the goods are shipped are opened and the separate packages contained therein for sale, they cease to be "imported arti cles"; Wynne v. Wright, 18 N. C. 19; and become subject to local taxation ; May v. New 178 U: S. 496, 20 Sup. Ct. 976, 44 L. •Ed. 1165 ; after the sale by the im porter they lose their distinctive character as imports and are taxable in the hands of the, buyer ; Porvear v. Massachusetts, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 479, 18 L. Ed. 608 ; Waring v. Mobile, 8 Wall. (U.. S.) 110, 19. L. Ed. ,342. . The ,'original packages of imported goods which cannot be so taxed are the boxes, cas es or bales in which the goods are shipped, and not the smaller packages therein con tained, although the latter are the packages in which the goods were put up by the manu facturer ; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 Sup. Ct. 976, 44 L. Ed. 1165. A, tax on auction sales of imported goods in the original packages is invalid; Cook v. Penn sylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. Ed. 1015. So a tax on the 'uncollected price of imported goods was invalid ; Gelpi v. Schenck, 48 La. Ann. 1535, 21 South. 115; as is a state law imposing a tax on the tonnage of vessels en tering her ports ; Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 24 L. Ed. 118. But a state tar on the gross receipts of a railroad company, where freights are received partly from an other state, is not a tax on imports ; Wood ruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. Ed. 382 ; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284, 21 L. Ed. 164.
An importation is not complete, within the revenue laws, until a voluntary arrival with in some port of entry ; Arnold v. U. S., 9 era. (U. S.) 104, 3 L. Ed. 671; Meredith v. U. S., 13 (U. S.) 486, 10 L. Ed. 258 ; The Mary, 1•Gall. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 9,183 ; but see Perots v. U. S., 1 Pet. C. C. 256, Fed. Cas.
No. 10,993 ; and the duties accrue at the time of such arrival ; U. S. v. Dodge, 1 Dea dy 124, Fed. Cas. No. 14,973 ; but the im portation, as between the importer and the gOvernment, is not complete as long as the goods remain in the custody of the officers of the customs, and until delivered to the impOrter, they are subject to any duties on imports which congress may see fit to im pose; U. S. v. Benton, 2 Cliff. 512, Fed. Cas. No. 14,577.
See ORIGINAL PACKAGE.
Free human beings are not imports or ex ports within the meaning of the United States constitution. The words refer only to property. Persons are not the subject of commerce and do not fall within the reason ing founded upon the construction of the power given to Congress to regulate com merce, and of the probiLition on the states against imposing a duty on imported goods; New York v. Compagnie Generale Transat lantique, 107 U. S. 59, 2 Sup. Ct. 87, 27 L. Ed. 383; but in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. (U. S.) 283, 412, 12 L. Ed. 702, it was held "that the commerce of the United States includes an intercourse of persons, as well as the importation of merchandise"; and the "head tax" statutes of New York and Massachu setts were held unconstitutional (so far as appears from, the opinions there being no "opinion of the court") as repugnant both to the commerce clause and that prohibiting the laying of import duties by the states. It is the settled construction of the commerce clause that interstate commerce includes the "movement of persons as well as of proper ty".; Hoke v. U. S., 227 U. S. 308, 33 Sup. Ct. 281, 57 L. Ed. 523, 43 L. A. A. (N. S.) 906; and the reasoning by which that conclusion is supported would seem to apply equally well to the safeguards of for eign commerce. Yachts are not imports. See TONNAGE.