| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Astor v. Merritt, Collector, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by the United States on the importation of foreign goods was constitutional. The plaintiff, John Jacob Astor, argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, which the Constitution prohibited. The defendant, Merritt, argued that the tax was an indirect tax, which was allowed by the Constitution. The Court held that the tax was an indirect tax, and therefore constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the act of importing goods, not on the goods themselves, and thus it was an indirect tax. The Court also noted that the tax was imposed on the act of importing goods, not on the person importing them, and thus it was not a direct tax. The Court concluded that the tax was constitutional, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the tax he had paid. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive, and that it was necessary to raise revenue for the government.
In Astor v. Merritt, Collector, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on foreign-built vessels that were owned by American citizens and used in the coasting trade violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that such taxation did not violate any constitutional provision; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that since these vessels were built abroad and had never been brought into any state of the United States for sale or use as merchandise, they could not be considered "merchandise" under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution which gives Congress power to impose taxes on imports and exports. Furthermore, he argued that even if these vessels could be considered "merchandise," it would still constitute an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce because it would give preference to domestic-built ships over those built abroad. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a strong argument against taxing foreign-built ships owned by American citizens when they are used in coastal trade within U.S waters