STATEMENT OF ENTRANCES OF AMERICAN AND FOREIGN VESSELS, ETC.-CONTINUED, TONNAGE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1850. ENROLLED AND LICENSED TONNAGE, Enrolled vessels employed in the coasting trade.... 1.755.796 42 Registered tonnage employed in whale fishery 43.027 86 1.797.824 33 85.646 30 58.111 94 8.160 34 151.918 63 3.535.454 23 146.016 71 Registered ton. employed other than in whale fishery 1.439.694 46 1.585.711 22 DESCRIPTION OF TONNAGE, Aggregate amount of tonnage of the U. States on 30th June, 1850 3.535.454 23 Of the enrolled and licensed tonnage there were employed in the Of the registered tonnage, amounting, as stated above, to 1.585.711 22 tons, there were employed in steam navigation.... Of the enrolled and licensed tonnage amounting, as stated above, to 1.899.554 71 tɔns, there were employed in steam navigation.... 1.755.796 42 85.646 30 58.111 94 1.899.554 71 44.942 25 481.004 65 Total tonnage in steam navigation.... 525.946 90 MERCHANTS' LICENSE LAW OF MISSOURI. Owing to the great interest that has been felt in this case we desired to publish the opinions of all the judges at large; but, finding them too long for admission in our Journal, we have limited our notice of the case to the following statement of the pleadings and evidence which we copy from the opinion of Justice Ryland. WAYMAN CROW, et. al., Appellants, VS. STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellee. On appeal. The appellants (defendants below,) were indicted in the Criminal Court of St. Louis county, for dealing as merchants without taking out a license, as required by the statutes of the State. The indictment contains six counts. The first charges that defendants unlawfully did receive for sale and unlawfully did deal as merchants in the selling of goods, wares and merchandise not the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, by then and there and on divers other days and times receiving for sale and selling as merchants as aforesaid, fifty yards of cloth, fifty yards of domestic, &c., &c., at a place then and there, and on other days and times occupied by them for that purpose, to divers persons unknown, without having any license, &c. The second count charges the same facts as the first, with this exception, that it omits to state that the goods, wares and merchandise received and sold were not the growth, produce and manufacture of this State. The third count charges that the defendants did import into the State, and unlawfully receive for sale and unlawfully did deal as merchants in selling, at the place and on the days aforesaid, goods, wares and merchandise, (naming them) not the growth, manufacture or produce of this State, but of England, in Great Britain; which importing, receiving and selling were in the original packages, bales and forms, as imported from England. This count also states that the duties had been regularly paid to the United States on the said goods. &c., without a license. The fourth count charges that defendants imported and received for sale, and sold on the days and times and at the place aforesaid, goods, wares and merchandise, the produce, growth and manufacture of New York, Pennsylvania, and other States of the Union, which selling was in the original packages, and also in broken packages, without a license. The fifth count charges that defendants imported goods, wares and merchandise into this State from sister States, and received and sold the same as aforesaid in the original packages unbroken, in which they were received by wholesale without a license. The sixth count is not materially different from the first. The defendants filed a demurrer to all the counts of the indictment. The demurrer was sustained to the second and third counts, and overruled as to all the others. A jury was then empanneled to try the issue on not guilty to the counts which had been held good on the demurrer. The evidence was as follows: The defendants at the time mentioned in the indictment were merchants, doing business in St. Louis, and received for sale at their store the goods, wares and merchandise mentioned in the indictment, in manner and form as therein charged, without a license. That all the goods, &c, so received and offered for sale by defendants were imported directly by them into this State from other States of the Union and foreign countries, and were not the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, and that the defendants did exercise the business of merchants by selling the goods, &c., mentioned in the indictment, as charged in all the counts, except the second and third counts, and this was all the evidence. The defendants then moved the court to give the following instructions to the jury, that "if defendants received for sale, and sold at their store in St. Louis, no other goods except such as were imported into this State by them, directly from other States of the Union, the jury will find for the defendants." This the court refused to give, and the defendants excepted. The defendants were found guilty. They afterwards filed their motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgement, raising again the questions of the propriety of the conviction on the testimony and of the legal sufficiency of the indictment. The court decided both these motions against the defendants; they again excepted, and bring the case before this court for revision. A reversal of the judgment of the Criminal Court has been insisted on before this court, upon grounds radical and fundamental, looking to nothing less than the absolute nullity of the laws upon which the counsel for the State rely to uphold the indictment. The cause was first brought before this court at the October term, 1850, at which time it was ably discussed at the bar, and was decided by the court, a majority feeling themselves bound by a sense of duty to declare the indictment insufficient to sustain the judgment of the Criminal Court, the provision of the statutes upon which it was found, being in their opinion unconstitutional. Subsequently, a re-argument was asked for and obtained by the counsel for the State. This court being deeply impressed with the magnitude of the subject, and of the great importance to the State of coming to a right conclusion, at this present term, the cause was again submitted to the court on full written arguments by the respective counsel, and the whole field of the controversy once more carefully reviewed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and ordered the defendants to be discharged from the indictment; but owing to the nature of the several questions involved, and the conflicting views entertained by each of the judges, it is difficult to determine to what extent this vexatious subject has been settled, or how far the decision will affect the revenue of the State. According to our understanding, the decision abolishes the advalorem tax on merchandize sold at retail; but recognizes the validity of the act passed 12th March, 1849, which provides for the collection "upon every merchant's and grocer's license" of a tax of 20 cents on every hundred dollars worth of merchandize received for sale, whether for wholesale or retail. We had thought of reviewing the decision, but perceiving that it would require more labor than we can devote to that object, we must leave the task to others. We brought the subject before the country in the Feb. number, 1849, of the Western Journal, with a view to a reformation of the revenue laws touching merchants and merchandize. In preparing our views, as then submitted, we arrived at the conclusion that the license laws were in violation of the constitution of the State; and so far as it embraced the products of sister States, offered for sale in packages, bales, barrels, &c., we considered it in violation of the constitution of the United States; and our opinions on these points have ben confirmed by the able and, as we believe, unanswerable arguments of Justice Ryland. MISSISSIPPI AND ATLANTIC RAILROAD. In noticing the public works in Illinois, in the March number of the Western Journal, we remarked in connection with the Mississippi and Atlantic Railway, that "the legislature having refused to sanction the termini, the prosecution of the work will, as we suppose, be suspended until a judicial decision can be had on the right of the Company to proceed." This, in connection with cer tain remarks contained in the address of the President of the Terre Haute and Alton Railroad Company, published in our March number, is complained of by a friend of the Mississippi and Atlantic Railway as calculated to impair the confidence of the public in the right of that company to prosecute their enterprise by virtue of their association under the general law. If such should be the case, we can but regard what we have said and published on that subject, with regret; but, in reviewing the entire matter objected to, we find nothing which, in our judgment, can be tortured into an opinion on our part respecting the rights of the company. Nothing was more natural than to suppose that refractory owners of land would be found on the route who would contest the right of the company to condemn land without the sanction of the termini by the legislature; and we supposed that it would be the true policy of the company to remove every doubt as to their rights, before they commenced the work. In that portion of the address of the President of the Terre Haute and Alton Railroad, which we published in the April number, he says, "The charter of the Terre Haute and St. Louis Railroad has been again vctoed by the voice of the same legislature, by a vote so decisive and in a manner so fortunate, as to preclude all hope of its ever being resuscitated, provided that we now make such an efficient commencement of the work upon our road as will amount to a sure guarantee of its early completion." Our object in publishing this address was simply to make known to our readers the steps that were being taken by that company towards the commencement of the work-we never imagined that we were making ourselves responsible as endorsers of the assertions or opinions contained in that document. We have noticed this matter chiefly for the purpose of asserting the policy which we have adopted, as journalists, in reference to all works of public improvement. One of our most cherished objects in the beginning was to incite a spirit of public improvement throughout the valley of the Mississippi and to suggest the outlines of a plan that would constitute the basis of a general system-but we resolved never to oppose any work of improvement for the purpose of building up a rival. If the citizens of any part of the country desire to construct a railroad or other improvement, and are willing to devote their means and labor to its accomplishment, we say God speed. Allow all to exercise this privilege, and in time every part of this great valley will be supplied with commercial and traveling facilities adapted to the wants of each-unreasonable monopolies will be avoided, and the resources of every part of the country more fully developed. Acting upon this policy, we take no part in the contest between rival works in Illinois. As a part of a great system, we have frequently commended the line. of improvement from Illinoistown to Terre Haute; and the necessity of this work, as a part of a general system for the West, is so |