77 U.S. 173 | SCOTUS | 1870
DOWNHAM ET AL.
v.
ALEXANDRIA COUNCIL.
Supreme Court of United States.
*175 Messrs. Brent and Wattles, for the plaintiffs in error, urged in this court the same positions which the defendant set up below.
Mr. D.L. Smoot, for the city council of Alexandria, contra.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The argument of counsel proceeds upon the supposition that the beer and ale in which the defendants dealt was manufactured either in a foreign country, or in another State of the Union; but there is nothing in the record to warrant the supposition. The first question that the parties desired to present in the agreed statement is not, in truth, raised by the facts admitted. It is not alleged in the statement that the defendants were dealers in "foreign beer or ale," or even in beer or ale manufactured without the State of Virginia. It is only alleged that they were dealers in beer and ale by the cask, which was not manufactured in the city of Alexandria. For anything which appears, the beer and ale in which they dealt may have been manufactured in other parts of the State. If manufactured within the State, the exaction of the special license tax for the privilege of selling them in casks in Alexandria, would not, of course, be obnoxious to either clause of the Constitution cited. In that case, it would not interfere with any regulation of commerce with foreign nations, or between the States, or with any authority to make regulations for such commerce. Nor would it, in that case, impair any privileges or immunities of citizens of other States, who, equally with citizens of Virginia, and upon the same terms, could deal in the city of Alexandria in similar goods. It is only equality of privileges and immunities between citizens of different States that the Constitution guarantees.
*176 The defendants have, in fact, presented for our consideration a possible, but not an actual question, one which may hereafter arise under the ordinance, but which has not arisen as yet; at least the record does not aver any facts which show that it has arisen, and we cannot indulge in presumptions to supply the omissions of material averments.
The second question presented in the statement depends for its solution upon the construction of local statutes, and does not involve the consideration of any act of Congress, or any provision of the Constitution of the United States.
We are of opinion that no question is raised by the record which this court can consider under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, and the writ of error must, therefore, be
DISMISSED.
