
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1790.
    State of Maryland against Nicholas Sluby.
    THIS was a scire facias on a bond, dated the 27th April, 1789, to the state, penalty 704/. Is. 4d. current money, reciting, that “ whereas the above bound Nicholas Sluby Co. have imported in the ship called Baltic Merchant, whereof Joshua Shepherd is master, (which said ship arrived and made due entry in the port of Baltimore, on the 21st of April, 1789,) sundry goods, wares and merchandise, to pay duty according to the laws of the state, to the amount of 352/. Oí. 8d. current money, with condition to pay the said sum of 352/. Os. 8d. current money into the hands of the naval officer of the fourth district, or to his deputy, on or before the 21st of February then next,” &c.
    The defendant’s counsel demurred generally to the scire facias, and the question for the Court was, whether the state of Maryland was entitled to the duties under the acts of assembly of 1784, c. 84. and 1785, c. 76. after the adoption of the federal constitution.
    
      Key and Potts, for the defendant.
    The acts of assembly are repealed by the constitution of the United States. The act of congress does not repeal them; they only operate by the general operation of the government. The duties might be different according to the different laws of each state, but by the federal constitution all duties must be uniform throughout the United States, and vessels bound from one state to another shall not pay duties. If the consent of Congress was given to the state to raise duties it would not be binding, for Congress can consent only where the duties are applied to the United States. Even if Congress had appropriated the duties to the United States, such an act would not be good, it not being founded in the constitution, and would cause a want of uniformity in the different states.
    
      By the 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution of the United States, all duties must be uniform. All laws which are inconsistent with this clause of the constitution defeats it. T'he act of assembly is void. It appropriates one fourth of the duties to the state; this Congress could not assent to. The custom-house officer ceased to he the officer of the state of Maryland as soon as the constitution of the United States was ratified. The alteration of our state constitution in the year 1776 altered and repealed all laws which were inconsistent with it.
    
      Martin (Attorney-General) and Chase, for the state.
    This is a question of construction. Under the 10th section, article 2d, of the constitution of the United States, the state governments may, with the consent of Congress, lay imposts and duties on exports and imports, to carry into execution their inspection laws. The intention of the constitution is, that all duties imposed by Congress should be uniform throughout the United States. No duties are to be laid without the consent of Congress, and yet the Congress may lay the same duties. All laws laying duties antecedent to the constitution of the United Slates, remained in force until Congress laid duties. The reason why there should be no duties on imports and exports, from one state to another, was to prevent any favourite port from being erected. If the constitution admits of any construction necessarily repugnant to the laws of the state, it is a repeal of them. The naval officer did not cease to be the officer of the state until the first of August, 1789, by virtue of the act of Congress of the 4th July, 1789, c. 2. The citizens of the state have paid the duties, and it cannot he presumecí that it was intended this revenue should be relinquished before laws of Congress had passed which would operate as a repeal of the state laws.
    All acts inconsistent with the constitution are null and void. But the constitution has no operation on this case. Congress has the power to lay duties, and such duties must be uniform when laid by Congress. No state can pass & law contrary to this provision of the constitution. If it was intended by the constitution to repeal the revenue laws of the state, it should have been so expressed.
   The Court

overruled the demurrer, and directed the execution to issue.

At November term, 1792, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  