63 F. 695 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota | 1894
(orally from the bench). The prisoner, a citizen of the state of Iowa, is deprived of his liberty under the commitment of a justice of the peace of the state of Minnesota, on the sole ground that, as the agent of citizens of the state of Illinois, he sold fruit trees that were grown in the state of Illinois in the state of Minnesota, without complying with the provisions of sections 1-3 of chapter 196 of the Laws of Minnesota for the year 1887. There is no claim that any false representations were made or any fraud committed in this sale. Section 1 of this chapter provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any tree, plant, shrub, or vine, not grown in the state of Minnesota, without first filing with the secretary of state an affidavit setting forth his name, age, occupation, and residence, and, if an agent, the name, occupation, and residence of his principals, and a statement
The third clause of section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States provides that “the congress shall have power * * * to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The effect of this provision of the constitution has been so frequently and forcibly declared by the supreme court of the United States that it is Sufficient for the purposes of this case to state a few of the propositions that the decisions of that, court have established. The power to regulate commerce among the states was carved out of the general sovereign power held by each state, and granted by the constitution to the congress of the United States. This power was thus vested in congress exclusively, and no state, by virtue of any power not thus granted, whether under the name of the “police power,” or under any other name, can lawfully infringe upon this grant. This power to regulate commerce, thus granted to congress, is not subordinate to any of the powers not granted, but paramount to all the powers of the state, and any act of the state which interferes with interstate commerce in a well-known and sound article of commerce is unconstitutional and void. Uow, while there are certain subjects in -their nature local, such as harbor pilotage, beacons, bridges, etc., regarding which a state ma.y legislate when congress has not, yet when the subject-matter is the sale of a well-recognized article of commerce, such as vines, trees, or shrubs, or any other well-known article of commerce, the product of another state, the subject is in its nature national, susceptible of regulation by rules uniform throughout the nation, and obviously susceptible of wise regulation by such uniform national rules only; and in such a case there can, of necessity, be only one system or plan of regulation, and that congress alone can prescribe. In all cases where congress has passed
Moreover, article 4, § 2, of the constitution of the United States^ provides that “the citizens of each slate shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of ciiizens in the several states.” This provision of the constitution, in my opinion, gives to the citizens of other states the right to introduce and sell the products of those; states in Minnesota on the same terms that her own citizens sell like producís of this state. The Illinois tree, the Wisconsin vine, the Iowa shrub, that is sound, and is of the same character as that grown in the state of Minnesota, seeking sale in this state, is entitled to be sold by those who deal in it on the same terms and with no greater restrictions than the like article produced in the state of Minnesota; and any restriction which imposes upon the dealers in foreign articles that are themselves sound, burdens that are not imposed on the dealers in like articles produced in the state of Minnesota, in my opinion, violates that provision of the constitution to which I have last referred.
It is said that the bond required here is to prevent the dealers in foreign trees from perpetrating fraud in their sale, and that it is competent for the state to protect its citizens against the; fraudulent representations of such dealers. The answer is that when a state undertakes, by statutory regulation, to deprive citizens of other states, who deal in sound articles of commerce produced in other states, of that presumption of honesty and innocence of wrong which it indulges in favor of the dealers in its own products, and which
For these reasons, I think the prisoner must be discharged. Let an order be entered to that effect.