nage of ships and vessels,) was not deemed an impost, strictly, but a duty. However, it must be admitted, that little certainty can be arrived at from such slight changes of phraseology, where the words are susceptible of various interpretations, and of more or less expansion. The most, that can be done, is, to offer a probable conjecture from the apparent use of words in a connection, where it is desirable not to deem any one superfluous, or synonymous with the others, A learned commentator has supposed, that the words, "duties and imposts," in the constitution, were probably intended to comprehend every species of tax or contribution, not included under the ordinary terms, "taxes and excises."[1] Another learned judge has said,[2] "what is the natural and common, or technical and appropriate, meaning of the words, duty and excise, it is not easy to ascertain. They present no clear or precise idea to the mind. Different persons will annex different significations to the terms." On the same occasion, another learned judge said, "The term, duty, is the most comprehensive, next to the generical term, tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas of taxes, duties, imposts, excises, customs, &c.) embraces taxes on stamps, tolls for passage, &c., and is not confined to taxes on importations only."[3]
§ 940. "Excises" are generally deemed to be of an opposite nature to "imposts," in the restrictive sense of the latter term, and are defined to be an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the com-Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol II).djvu/431
CH. XIV.]
POWERS OF CONGRESS—TAXES.
423
