Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.

TERM, 189?. 438 Syllabus. road was (whose wholly State of way and was car- the Iowa) ried and was there delivered by company Brighton, by its servants the of its station. upon platform freight Taking into that so consideration much of the as was transportation an interstate railroad had by been accom- performed company and that the remainder of the plished, by transportation Iowa, an Iowa within the State of corporation wholly had been so far as to land the completed intoxicating liquor Iowa, the soil of we are of that there had been opinion “ an in such arrival so as to State,” subject of the exercise State of Iowa, the- police within powers and the of the letter act of spirit Congress. v. W. A. VANDERCOOK

VANCE COMPANY (No. 1). FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF STATES FOR APPEAL THE THE UNITED DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

THE 1898. May 1898. Argued No. 514. March 9, Decided 9, previous adjudications settled this court: respective plenary power (1) regulate That the States have the sale intoxicating borders, scope within their and the depend solely regulations judgment extent such of the States, provided lawmaking they always, of the do not state-authority by invading rights transcend limits of pro- are secured Constitution the United and- further, adopted operate regulations vided that the do not against rights discrimination or residents citizens of other Union; States (2) another, That the to send and the one State same, seuding commerce, act of regulation is interstate has been whereof Constitution the .United committed hence, Congress, and, States to that a state law wh'ick denies n right, ipterferes hampers substantially same, with States; in conflict with the Constitution of the United power- ship That the (3) merchandise from into another one State it, incident, carries with as an the receiver goods original regulation- sell them in the packages, contrary say, goods notwithstanding; that is to COMPANY (No. v. W. VANDEECOOK 1). A. Statement of Case. commerce remain under the shelter interstate received Constitution, by a clause of the until sale in commerce interstate package commingled general .have been with the but, State; property passage the act of in since the of mass "¡tat. 1890, 313, 8, 728, provides “that August c. 26 of fermented, liquors liquids intoxicating, or other or trans- distilled ported Territory, any remaining use, or or for State therein consumption, therein, storage in sale or shall arrival such Territory subject operation to the and effect of the State or Territory or enacted in exercise of of such State its laws police powers, in manner to the same extent and the same as liquors liquids produced though in had been such State or Territory, exempt by being of shall not therefrom reason otherwise,” original packages in fije introduced therein while' State, intoxicating liquors in another receiver of one sent from right his to them for has the constitutional receive own contrary, use, regard he can no to the state laws without original packages in right longer a to sell them the de- assert of law. fiance state 1S97, 340, 5, amending the act act of March No. of

Tlie South Carolina compels 6, 1896, unconstitutional in so far as March No. is his own the State who desires to order alcoholic for resident of use, chemist, purpose to to a and in so far first communicate his deprives right ship by of the to means-of interstate as non-resident authority any liquor previous unless commerce into South Carolina Carolina, as, of since obtained from the officers of State South they subject regulations, it clear that the constitu- the face of these ship into the State and of the resident tional of the non-resident wholly which are his to conditions receive for own incompatible repugnant of the which the with and existence acknowledges. statute itself a filed corporation bill below was appellee, The State. and a citizen of that created laws California owner was the that the substance, alleged, corporation well which it California, vineyards,in produced large ; known wines and brandies and other pure qualities the State of a citizen of its through travelling agent, of the State of took resideuts orders from certain Virginia, it Charleston, to deliver Carolina South city residing n of. to each of certain packages them Charleston com-' wines and brandies, vineyards the products (cid:127) orders seventy-three that in of said plainant; consequence were aforesaid for the customers shipped original packages TERM, 1897. Case, Statement car, one contract interstate continuous carriage from San Francisco to that under a law of Charleston; South Carolina, known as the law, certain officersof the dispensary South Carolina had seized the packages above described and thereof, and prevented delivery openly avowed their intention to continue levy upon any packages into the State of South Carolina in viola- liquor shipped tion of the- law of the State. The bill moreover an- alleged other same character and like shipment seizure. bill then averred as follows:

“ And orator further your shows that orátor intends in your the course of its business, said addi further aforesaid, tion to said so ordered customers in ad shipments said vance, aforesaid, to also from San Francisco, ship California, to its in the State of South agent store and Carolina, warehouse in the Carolina, Slate of sell in South of South State Carolina, unbroken as packages as aforesaid, the residents and of .imported, citizens the State ' of South its and of Carolina, wines other its liquors, products as for aforesaid, the lawful use and of vineyards, consumption the said residents citizens of the and State South Carolina in.the due and lawful exercise of orator’s your impor of such wines, etc., its tation; products vineyards, of South State Carolina in lawful trade' and com intercourse, inei’ce with-the'citizens and residents of the South Carolina, under- the and laws of the United Constitution all of which- aforesaid, as shipments, defendants' and" other to act as state constables ancl offi persons'claiming cials threaten1 to and seize, detain, take convért carry away, sell, and to the manifest and wrong, your damage injury orator and its trade and business, as aforesaid. “ And your orator further shows and under the terms, and of the said principle, policy operation dispensary '. law of the State of South Carolina, aforesaid, approved 6, March and amended March 6, 1897, wines, beers, ales, alcoholic,' and are other spirituous intoxicating of lawful im- manufacture, subjects barter, sale, and export in the"State of port been, South have Carolina, being, v. W. A. COMPANY (No. VANDERCOOK 1). used and consumed will continue to as a lawfully the citizens and residents of the State of South beverage Carolina.” the avowed the state officers to con- purpose Averring

. thereafter tinue to seize all shipped complainant into the State to residents therein or for sale in original pack- the bill that the state law ages, proceeded charge which the officers relied was void, because repugnant Constitution of the United States. That to the con- prevent which would arise from the con- wrong tinuing necessarily duct of. the officers and to avoid state of suits, multiplicity a writ of injunction necessary state restraining officers from with in its interfering complainant shipment its to residents of the their products orders, also the state officers from with the com- enjoining interfering n from the State of California plainant shipping products into the State of South Carolina to its there for the agents the same in purpose selling original packages, provisions of the South Carolina law to the contrary notwithstanding. This outline of the mere averments of bill suffices to con- an which the record vey understanding controversy A order iwas for presents. restraining granted. prayed n officers, after due against designated pleadings ano order was and a' proceedings restraining perpetuated, final decree was entered in favor of. accord- the complainant ance with the bill. prayer Barber, Mr. William A. General of the State of Attorney s

South Carolina, . appellant J. P. Mr. for Kennedy Bryan appellee.

Mr. White Justice delivered the of the court. opinion In the two cases Scott v. 58, 107, 165 U. S. the Donald, to determine court was whether a law of the State upon called the Carolina, of South sale controlling intoxicating liquors was; the State, within Constitution of repugnant TEEM, 1897. OCTOBEE it was held that In cases the court States. one the United a bill filed the had to entertain complain- below jursdiction law, the as to them the execution of ants liquors by enjoin in in decided so far as that, while both cases was owned; in one law then forbade the (cid:127)the .from sending for the use of into South Carolina intoxicating statute was to whom it was person repugnant shipped, first article of the third clause of section 8 of the Consti- of as the Inter- States, of the United tution commonly spoken It was Commerce clause of the Constitution. besides state created state officers-or decided that the law which question, to be sold the State, with authority buy agents liquor so and which forbade except bought any liquor was also in officers and offered for sale agents, because States, of .the United violation Constitution to an discrimination against liquors, amounting unjust on this reached latter of other States. conclusion products which not on theory was subject predicated general of the law in' but on statute practice, particular provisions put Whether about. the discrimination was which brought of the United the Constitution without could, violating the sole confer certain officers States, agents State, no to be sold allowing were buy offered for sale des- to be sold other except decided. On officers or was not contrary, ignated agents, law .was found to reserved, the state was for as this question because of discriminatory pro- violate Constitution express n to determiné which it became contained, visions unnecessary it. of that character -wouldbe whether general inherently to the Constitution of the United repugnant Eeférring to this last the court said question, (p. 101): (cid:127) “It that it is not us pressed argument compe- tent for a in the exercise of its police power, monopo- lize the traffic and thus itself intoxicating put liquors, with the citizens other This States. competition phase is novel and think it nec- but we do not subject interesting, us now consider it. for the essary is sufficient pres- ent case to do, as we that when a State hold, recognizes v. A. VANDEECOOK COMPANY VANCE W. (No. 1), ii3 and use of manufacture, as lawful it intoxicating liquors cannot discriminate such articles in against bringing States; them from other that such importing legislation is hindrance to interstate an void as a commerce and unjust of the of the State as preference products enacting against of other States.” similar products which

The this record arises from controversy presents similar in its Carolina, law of South general one scope which review in was under Scott Donald. The statute before was enacted after us, however, decision Scott v. Donald, many important law changes particulars on in that which was case. statute, passed changed, retains the the state provisions conferring officers general to all the exclusive which to right buy liquor agents is. but same, sold the State to sell the does contain which those clauses in the statute were to held previous operate a discrimination. modifies the It, moreover, statute previous it the extent that allows.shipments intoxicating liquors the State be made other States into of South Carolina to for their but residents therein own the exercise subjects of this and restrictions. De- designated regulations it differences, these is asserted that spite present Constitution of United States for the repugnant reasons : First, because features following although act were held to be have been prior .discriminatory eliminated from nevertheless there act, are, asserted, in the other act which on their face amount provisions present discrimination, to a and therefore render act void. because as the act at Second, drawn created state present officersand confers them the buy which is to be sold forbids the sale any other other it is therefore in violation liquor by person, Constitution United States to the extent that seeks to control forbid the sale original packages of all into South Carolina from other States. liquor shipped And this for consideration the controversy presents which was reserved in Third, because, Scott v. Donald. amended, statute of residents although recognizes OCTOBER, TERM, 1897.

Opinion of tlie Court. to the residents ship of other States intoxicating liquors .their their to receive the same, and right South Carolina it since in is denies it, asserted, reality, right, own frus- which and is conditions hamper exercise subjected a to a to.such that are same they trate the degree equivalent itself. two first contentions the The denial of go right if well render it void therefore, statute, taken, whole third in its since is narrower only an entirety. purport, the the restrictions which as unconstitutional assails particular of the of another the residents statute right imposes of that and of the South Carolina residents State to ship at for their own use. We, therefore, receive State to of the two contentions before first outset, the approach- dispose the ing third.. in mind few is to bear necessary

In the inception which are concluded so entirely by elementary propositions, of this that need court, only adjudications previous recapitulated. briefly have States dispute plenary (a.) Beyond respective within their the sale of to regulate intoxicating power of such extent depend borders, scope regulations of the States, of the lawmaking solely judgment power of state do not transcend the limits always, they provided Con- by which secured authority by invading rights that further, of the stitution United provided a discrimination do not adopted regulations operate of other States residents or citizens rights against' Union. (cid:127) (cid:127) well is established the proposition (b.) Equally and the another, send one State into from right Commerce, is Interstate same, act regula- sending has tion whereof been committed the- Constitution and, a state "United States to hence, Congress, with or denies such interferes right, substantially hampers of the United is in conflict with the Constitution the same, States. certain that that the It is also the settled doctrine

(c.) car- merchandise one State into another power ship A. v. W. VANDERCOOK COMPANY (No. 1). with incident, ries as an it, the receiver of the to sell them the original goods packages, regula- tion to the that is to contrary notwithstanding; say, received Interstate Commerce remain under goods of the Interstate shelter Commerce clause of the Constitu- until a sale in the tion, have been package they with the mass of commingled general property State. This last' however, whilst proposition, generically true, ho since longer applicable intoxicating liquors, in the exercise of its lawful has authority recognized of the several States to control the incidental original packages, intoxicating liquors, shipped into one State from so as to enable the another, States to pre- vent the exercise the receiver of the accessory right selling intoxicating liquors original packages except to lawful state In other conformity regulations. words, by virtue of the act of the receiver of Congress intoxicating in one sent from can no another, liquors assert longer in- sell defiance of the state law in the original because has to the packages, Congress recognized contrary.- The act of referred c. was to, Congress approved August and is entitled “An 8,1890, act to limit the effect of the regu- lations commerce between the and several States with for- in countries certain It reads as cases.” follows: eign “That all or-.other fermented,-distilled' intoxicating liquors or State or or remain- transported liquids Territory, therein for use, sale or shall ing therein, consumption, storage in arrival State or to the such npon Territory subject opera- tion and effect of the State or enacted laws such Territory in the exercise of its to the same extent and police powers, the same such or had been though liquids manner and shall not Territory, produced exempt reason of introduced therein in being, original therefrom, 26 Stat. 313. otherwise.” packages ¡this have been settled. effect act of scope Congress 545 ; I n re U. S. Rhodes v. 412. Rahrer, Iowa, ante, In of these cases the constitutional Con- the first power of. was the upheld, enactment and. ini gress pass TERM, 1897. M6 it was declared to Congress have been purpose adopting laws to to allow state operate into one State liquor shipped so as to another, from sale prevent original package laws. of state In the second in violation case the same view statute, taken of it was decided that although did of the State attach to the power intoxicating when in course of transit until and de- receipt it Avas reiterated that the obvious and mean- livery, yet plain the act of was to allow the state kuvs to ing attach to received Interstate intoxicating Com- before merce sale in. shipments original package, therefore at such a time as to such sale if made un- prevent la Avful the state law.

The claim the state statute is unconstitutional because to sell deprives imported liquor original rests, therefore, packages assumption is a Interstate Commerce, because forbids regulation of an act Avhich doing consequence permissive act of had un grant resulting Congress, laAvful do. entire doubtedly Indeed, the power argu ment which it is endeaAmredto maintain the contention arises from from view the sale excluding change from the act of that is, intoxicating liquor arising Congress; it rests on the fallacious that the State is Avithout assumption forbid intbxicating liquor? the act of in fact, Avhile as a re packages despite Congress, act, sult of that the restrictions and of state laws regulations ,on become' before the sale operative original package and therefore such if (cid:127)thereof, cannot be sold packages state laAV the can- sale, forbids sold in the so man only ner and form the state of view prescribed by regulations. In the self-evident Avhichthe misconception upon pro argument ceeds, it becomes to review the decisions unnecessary many of this court cited in of the relied support proposition upon. Their but their authority unquestioned, irrelevancy equally obvious. relate to illustrate various of They aspects' the that to send merchandise from one principle State to another carries with it as an of incident poAver (No. v. W. A. COMPANY VANDEECOOK 1).

Opinion of Court. in them the whom airereceived to sell the one by origi to a even so nal may contrary although doing package, law. None óf them have the remotest state bearing' the act of to this rule Con exception general- springing of in to forbid the sale The gress. law clear, it state results original packages being when it is void in excess of state cannot be because authority, in the vested but the execution of a lawfully legislature -power of the case, would but This State. reasoning dispose in has no contention that the act for the question Congress in this case the and indeed controversy, bearing in of intoxicants an to control the sale as if act of determined must1be just original package had been never passed. has submitted it is act question Congress, argued, to the control of state merchandise only packages original As the exercise laws “enacted police powers.” on the con- but, does not forbid, law here in state within the State, of intoxicants authorizes 'the sale trary, therefore not enacted the exer- it is not law, hence police does cise police power consequently within the sale of upon packages operate rest is But the which these State. arguments upon premise fact From the arbitrary imaginary. purely the sale subject particular permits it does not conditions, enumerated restrictions only upon that the not a manifestation police power follow law is of the act of the State. Congress having purpose plain the sale of been to allow state upon operate regulations from other of intoxicants coming original packages it as construe would its obvious meaning permitting destroy the sale case the state laws attach to and control only and not to the States forbade sales apply liquor, absolutely the same. case States determined restrict regulate in the which is involved The confusion of proposi Thought to which referred is embodied tion we have prin just its conclusion. below which the court mainly’rested ciple held, are “if whomsoever is, That all alcoholic liquors, 448 TERM, 1897.

Opinion of the Court. and', declared cease to contraband, commerce, they belong are within the but so jurisdiction ; as. police power long their sale, and their manufacture, use as a bever purchase form or age any by any person recognized, they belong and are to commerce without the domain of the police power.”’ this restricts the mere police forbid,, But and denies and all or restrict. The any authority regulate manifest the act of towas purpose Congress subject origi nal to the and restraints packages regulations imposed by state law. If the of the act had been to allow the purpose law to the sale of the govern only original package forbidden, where the sales of all were could1 liquor object have found on the whilst, the- ready expression, contrary, context entire of the act manifests the to- purpose Congress to the States full both for give respective legislative authority, as well as for that of purpose prohibition regulation with restriction reference to the original packages in from other States. intoxicating liquors brought n the claim Nor is well founded that it was decided Scott v. that the Donald of the act of of 1890 do provisions Congress not whose laws the sale of is not apply any that forbidden, is to exists to absolutely say, sell violation of the state law's wherever packages not do sold under circum- they prohibit liquor being Donald, stances. v. which Scott is asserted language doctrine, establishes this is as follows (p. 100): “ It South not Carolina then' a law (the considered) to forbid the sale and use manufacture, purporting importation, to the as articles detrimental welfare intoxicating liquors, of the State and to health inhabitants, hence it within the act of of. scope operation 1890.”. August, from its context 'these words have

Separated might to be attached but eluci- when them, significance sought dated a reference to what them, immediately preceded refer followed, is obvious that .which immediately which a state law considered, is, matter being was. did not forbid the allowed but, it, sale, contrary, (No. A. COMPANY VANDERCOOK 1). W. discrimination the- under conditions express against prod- Immediately other States. following ucts of passage 'is language: cited “ act of law intended confer (the That Congress) State the discriminate power any injuriously against upon of other States articles whose manufacture the products and which are forbidden, are not therefore the sub and use When commerce. that law that provided of legitimate jects ' distilled or fermented, all intoxicating liquors transported or therein con Territory, remaining arrival should, in such therein, sale or storage sumption, and effect of or be operation Territory, subject in the enacted exercise of of such State or laws Territory the'same and same manner extent its police powers,-to had been in such or produced such though liquids not be therefrom 'and State or should exempt Territory, introduced therein reason of original packages being treatment under otherwise,’ uniformity equality evidently a whether state laws was intended. given question still and law lawful exercise of the open, is a police power en Such law forbid to this court. may must remain open, and sale intoxicating the manufacture tirely for. the regulations Or may equal inspection provide valid. and be valid. domestic sale of all imported liquors under the cannot, Congressional legislation But5 the State effect, discriminates which, referred establish to, system in commodities to commerce and domestic between interstate to be lawful.” which admitted make and use under consideration the law expressly found Having other States, ques- discriminated products against the act of whether tion decision was Congress arose for which and it on the original package, allowed such a law operate to decide what would not necessary became therefore The conclusion ex- did not rule where discrimination exist. more, the case was this and on that branch nothing pressed a state authorizes law to act although did not sale, as to so attach to prevent an package of a state law which operation sanction contemplate thei VOL. CLXX—29 TERM, 1897. discriminated other against products

injuriously and which discrimination was not a consequence in the correct sense of those would words. It lead police to treat conclusion to an sentences Scott impossible reliance is which Donald, upon placed having signifi- to them in since, attributed cance as we have argument, court, stated, reserved the already expressly question which a state law undertook to on its whether confer officers which was to be sold in the State buy if would be constitutional no provisions express discriminatory it. found in is obvious from even a casual were reading court did not pass opinion very question declared it abstained from it’expressly deciding. but A more unsound is involved plausible equally proposition that the the contention state law in inherently The which is discriminatory. argument by supported as follows: The to the' state officers exclusive gives to all the to in be sold the State. The right purchase liquor to includes the authority purchase right part whom to determine from and where the biiyer purchase may be This made. officers the gives exercis- by opportunity, their to in one State to the detri- ing purchase, buy ment and exclusion of the other State. As products every no other but that then, which the officers can product, be Wy sold in the follows will that, intoxicants be although offered for in sale the State, from freely only liquors coming in sold, the State which the officer will be so has purchased and the of all other products States will be sale excluded.from and be thereby discriminated And whether these against. will arise will consequences depend solely upon arbitrary discretion the state in officers where and from determining whom the to offer for will liquor they be propose by This, them purchased. demonstrates the inherent argued, discrimination offi- makes state arising legislation — cers the sole authorized persons to and sell a dis- buy liquor crimination whose unjust can be avoided only consequences by recognizing residents of all other States to their ship products the State and sell'them in original (No. COMPANY A. 1). VANDERCOOK v. W. ±51

Opinion the Court. to maintain In the first this-proposition, packages. place, officer, in that the must state be indulged pur- presumption statute, instead of state by buying provided chasing an chance the best to markets, affording equal and fairly so act will, to every locality, contrary, all sellers or of one more States toas discriminate against products of others. of those favor would be case the Such equally justified presumption to residents to be licensed sell authorized liquor state law only number of such The so licenses. and restricted persons hundred, where or one would whether one buy they licensed, it would to therefore sell, they proposed pleased liquor to elect to be that they buy cogent argue might fully and thus discriminate another, one instead against place did from where or from not whom places persons if will be even it be buy. argument strengthened, a number is difference between conceded that there licensing sell and to to power, buy buy persons concentrating sold, of state be hands officers, the liquor that whether 'the statute discriminates further conceding determined of other States is producers solely against about the discrimination which tile migh’t bring power and not whether the has execution, arise from 'its an been carried out as cause actual discrimination. so would doubtless force Undbr these concessionsthere officers, if the taken, buy authority position of the residents sold, to be them excluded the'right of South to the residents Carolina other State ship every for the of in that event the for their own products liquor the state officers State from which no was bought by liquor the State, would excluded from by although wholly therein state state law could be agents. sold liquor when it is con But the is overcome of the contention weight of the Constitution sidered that the Commerce clause Interstate from into merchandise one State to guarantees right ship of the termination another, shipment it protects until at right delivery consignment, place unaffected state which allows act wholly TERM, 1897. to attach to the authority original before sale but package Donald, after Scott v. only delivery. Rhodes supra ; v. Iowa, that under follows the Constitution supra. of the United Carolina, resident States of South every to free receive for his own use from other States and that liquor the inhibitions of a state statute do not to operate from prevent other States from into such being shipped State, the order of a resident his use. This demonstrates the of' unsoundness the contention if state are the agents ones authorized only to in a State, for sale buy liquor they select the be sold from States, of other particular States products will be excluded. cannot They be excluded if are free in for the use come resident of any South Carolina who elect to order them for his use. The may of other products States will be, course, excluded from sale in the original but as the packages State to right prevent the sale in of intoxicants original from-other packages coming States, of the state consequence law the sale forbidding but certain attaches liquor, from original packages other States virtue of the act of Congress, inability make such sales arises a lawful state To hold enactment. the law unconstitutional because it prevents n would be to decide that the state package unconstitutional because exerted a which the State a lawful Indeed, exercise. the law of right the State had here under review does not to forbid the purport shipment into the State from other States for the intoxicating'liquors of a resident, use and if it did so, would, upon principle under the Donald, Scott v. to that extent be in con ruling with the flict Constitution of the United States. It is argued, that the considerations are since the foregoing inapplicable us, now before whilst it' law, of resi recognizes right other dents of States to into South Carolina for thé ship liquor of residents attaches to the use exercise therein, it. such restrictions virtually destroy one State to But persons ship liquor his own use another State aresident'for is derived from of the United and does Constitution not rest v. COMPANY 453 (No. 1). W. A. VANDEKCOOK

Optnion of the Court. attached the law. Either the conditions state by the grant do not. restrain If they right they law unlawfully — — this then hereafter examine contention we shall do lawful do then there no not, If they are void. ground they subject. complaint examine whether the to regulations We are thus brought the residents of other law on the the state imposed State of South Carolina alcoholic into the States to ship that when them for their ordered to the residents in their nature to burdensome as sub- are so onerous whether so is, they hamper stantially impair right; as interfere and restrict the exercise materially effect, or, with enjoyment. prevent we dis this however, Before, briefly approaching question, now It is said that law of two other contentions. pose the' contains us is since really before discriminatory, expressly and which held found in the were statute, previous provisions Donald, v. to be Constitution of Scott repugnant This United States. predicated following argument law before us'was The now passed subsequent proposition: Donald, that the discrimina decision in Scott holding void, act and it omits clauses in the were tory entirely previous incon them. Its laws clause, however, only repeals repealing is, sistent and the that as therewith, argument provisions in the and which were declared unconsti law, found previous inconsistent with court, tutional present and the law-must therefore continue exist, law, they present (cid:127) in it. The error of the if were written interpreted notice.. is so self evident argument passing require only had been before fact that omitted very provisions unconstitutional enactment of new law declared their with affords a demonstration of conclusive inconsistency In the fact that the addition, law. present present .had been ‘unconsti has omitted the declared provisions the intention tutional excludes supposition and re law, new silence on the subject, perpetuate the void is, enact moreover, provisions. contended stat there is an found discrimination present express TERM, 1897. not referred ute, AvhichAvas Scott v. Donald, the pro\Ti sion in one which authorizes the use a resident being by or of South Carolina of Avine made him for such liquor by pur of the entire statute The context demon pose. conclusively in an strates that the thus and limited given exceptional case no relieves alcoholic made a citizen Avay by OAvn from South for his use Carolina restrictions imposed as to the sale of all other the statute this, there liquors, made fore, leaves resident for his use, own under liquor the control of the statute general regulations creates, and this ansAvers contention. completely

The the State in residents of another right recognized by State to into South to a Carolina resident of that State ship for his own use is the statute as liquor regulated follows, act of March No. the act of 5, 1897, 340, March amending 6, 61: No. “ resident in this State Any person intending import use and personal malt, fer- any spirituous, consumption vinous, brewed or other mented, from liquor, alcohol, containing, any other State or shall first foreign country, the chemist certify £o of the South Carolina and kind of quantity College liquor to be with imported, proposed together name and place business firm or person, corporation whom it is desired to such purchase, accompanying certificate Avitha state- ment that the has proposed been to for- consignor requested Avarda of such sample said chemist at liquor Columbia, South Carolina. of said Upon the said receipt sample, chemist shall to test the immediately proceed same, and if it be found to be and free from pure hurtful or any poisonous, deleterious matter, he shall issue a certificate to that effect, therein the name stating proposed and con- consignor and the and kind of signee, be quantity liquor proposed thereunder, Avhich certificate imported shall be dated andfor- Avarded said chemist, to con- postpaid, proposed at his signor business. said place The shall cause consignor such certificate to be attached to the package containing when into this liquor arid no shipped bear- package such certificate shall be liable ing to seizure and ; confiscation COMPANY (No. A. 1). v. W. VANDERCOOK vinous, brewed malt, fermented, but spirituous, any package alcohol into this or imported or other containing liquid liquor or certificate, such package State without containing that described the certificate other than thereto or to any person attached, shipped by per- any package named shall seized confis- certificate, sons not in this act. certificate obtained from cated as Any provided within herein shall be used the chemist as sixty provided days and shall invalid thereafter. issue, after the date of for more one unlawful use said chrtificates than shall be importation.” the resident the State then, compels regulation, for his own to first communicate his

who desires order It moreover non- to state chemist. deprives purpose Interstate Commerce of the to means of resident right ship by is into South unless Carolina previous authority any liquor South Carolina. from the of the State of obtained officers of these it is clear On the face they subject regulations, into the of the non-resident the constitutional ship right for his own the resident in State to receive State and of with and which to conditions wholly incompatible(cid:127) the statute of the which to the existence right . repugnant of another The of the citizen itself acknowledges. right cannot be held of State to avail himself Interstate Commerce of the an officer of a certificate be by subject issuing of without Carolina, power State of South admitting But the officer to control the exercise of right. it exists States; of the United arises from Constitution n whollyindependent or the of the will of hither the lawmaking outside of the its of the takes State; executive origin power in the Constitu- State of its Carolina, South finds support be exer- or not it tion Whether may of the United States. the- cised will of the making solely upon person depends limited by and cannot in advance controlled be shipment, its action of the State government. any department to be As the law directs that a ‘of the proposed sample liquor of the officer in advance shall be sent to the ship- shipped to make a and as a for ment, obtaining permission prerequisite (cid:127) TERM, 1897. it is claimed in that this law shipment, subsequent argument for the is an inspection passed purpose guaranteeing of the to be into the State for product shipped purity and therefore it but a valid therein, of a resident is mani- use of the for-the State exerted festation police power pur- But it is that this obvious inspection only. argument poses of a in advance unsound, sent inspection sample an of the hot subse- slightest inspection degree goods into the State. The be one shipped sample may quently and the merchandise thereafter comes another. thing .to is hence reason the law an beyond say provides into the other goods shipped inspection when fact it no exacts whatever. Con- inspection without of the State where it has power ceding, deciding, the control of the sale of all within the State in placed of its own officers to an charge provide inspection a' for use residents other States shipped within the clear a law to residents it is that such must not valid or burden constitu- substantially hamper tional the one hand to and on the other make receive such A law of at this nature must least shipment. for some article provide inspection justify being an law. an the State inspection inspect article Constitution, protected guarantees intended sold, because for use and is in which cannot only the nature restrained from the things limitations arising of a more nature than constitutional restricted provisions be the articles intended for within would power' inspect and the State. harm abuse arise might greater in the latter case a wider is incident than power suggests other. from

It follows decree below ren- foregoing in dered was well founded far as it the defend- so restrained from ants into the State of seizing property shipped Carolina from the State of South California complain- for the residents of .on the ant the State South Carolina orders of such residents for their own said because use, ship- had not been made in ments with the regulations compliance v. A. COMPANY W. VANDERCOOK (No. 1). 457 Dissenting Opinion: Fuller, Sliiras, J., C.J., McKenna, J. But it further follows that the law of South Carolina. so far as restrained the state below was

decree wrong of the officers from upon property complainant levying for the into the State agents complainant pur- shipped sold therein and stored and original packages being pose These conclusions from with sales. require interfering below be affirmed and reversed part judgment part. renders it to remand the case to the

This cotirt necessary enter a with instructions to decree aside in- below setting and to the extent indicated, above dismissing junction bill in so and as is only above injunction perpetuating far n the whole in with out, accordance the views herein pointed and is so above ordered. expressed, with whom the

Mr. Justice Shiras dissenting part, and Mr. Justice McKenna concurred. Chief Justice in so far as 'court, In the judgment opinion of the Circuit Court the state affirm the decree restraining into the State of South officers from seizing property shipped of California for Carolina from the State complainant on their order their own residents of South Carolina lead me so I concur. But the reasons which concur fully from that of said constrain me to withhold assent my portion which reverses decree below, opinion judgment that it from restrained such officers respect levying confiscating shipped property complainant for the stored and sold State to of being agents purpose therein in original packages.

. it will In I be assumed, the few observations shall submit as well the act of settled, before the August passage within 1890, known as the Wilson it was not Act, State to forbid the wines importation or other nor. their countries foreign nor such sale discriminatory original packages, subject 116 446; taxes or v. U. S. Walling Michigan, regulations. n U. S. Co., 465, 507; Bowma Railway Chicago TERM, 1897.. 458 C.J., Shiras, J., Fuller, Opinion: McKenna, Dissenting J. S. v. Hardin, 100; 135 U. v. 135 Lyng Michigan, Leisy U. S. 161. us, therefore, before turns

The case con- proper of that statute. struction application it, considered has been this Since its court in two- passage therein reached will now and the conclusions cases, pointed out. re 140 U. S. Rahrer, In the case of In 545, for'

n adjudication of a constitutional validity provision of. “ Kansas; provided manufacture- shall be forever and sale intoxicating liquors prohibited medical, this scientific State, mechanical except pur- statutes of that and of certain State which declared poses,” “ who shall sell any person persons manufacture, malt, vinous, barter fermented or other any spirituous, intoxi- a misdemeanor, and be guilty cating liquors pun- shall Provided, ished as hereinafter : however, That’ provided medical, sold'for scientific and mechanical liquors may pur- be^ ” act; and it was held poses that, provided of a arrested case state authorities for person selling imported liquor 9th.day August, 1890, contrary the law of the- State which sale, forbade the the act of Con- which had into effect on the 8th gress gone day August, should be providing imported to the subject and effect of the state laws to the same operation extent and manner as same had been though produced . justified imposition penalties law. state It will be that this was a case which perceived the state manufacture,

laws and sale of .wholly prohibited intoxicat as articles of ing liquors ordinary merchan consumption dise; said, this court to the Wilson referring bill, act, did not use terms of to the State permission but removed an simply enforcement of the impediment laws to' in their respect imported- packages condition. . .. no to the State not imparted then but állowed possessed, fall at once imported property arrival within the local upon1 jurisdiction.” A. VANDERCOOK COMPANY (No. VANCE W. 1). Shiras, Opinion: J., C.J., McKenna, Fuller, Dissenting J. 165 U. S. Donald,

In Scott was the 58, presented ques- of the act of the tion validity general of assembly 2, 1895, South Carolina, approved known' January generally Law. That the State did not as Dispensary forbid legislation of or manufacture sale use, the but en- intoxicating liquors, of an elaborate acted no system regulation, wines or whereby wines, domestic should be manufactured or except liquors, of sold a state board of through agency except control, and certain a commissioner and after an county dispensers, a state chemist. inspection wines and in of made other States liquors and

Packages of the State a resident for his use, own and imported which, of railroad as common companies car- possession within had riers, State, were seized brought packages confiscated as contraband constables of and n the State. certain of court, This after considering act provisions relieved the sale of domestic wines from restrictions and wines also those which imported created upon imposed — said a system inspection, a law to forbid “This not purporting importation, and use of as manufacture, articles intoxicating liquors, and to the welfare the State detrimental health and not .within the and hence is inhabitants, scope opera- tion the act of 1890. That law was Congress August confer not intended to State the to discrimi- any upon power nate of other States injuriously against articles products manufacture and forbidden, whose use and which are therefore commerce. When subjects legitimate ‘ all fermented, distilled oe. provided intoxicating State or Territory, liquors, transported remaining therein for sale or therein, consumption, storage should, arrival in such or be Territory, subject laws of effect such State or operation Territory enacted of its the exercise the same ex- police powers, and in tent such the same manner though liquids had-been should produced Territory, not; therein in therefrom reason introduced exempt being otherwise,’ or uniform- evidently .or packages equality TERM, 1897. Shiras, C.J., Opinion: J., Duller, McKenna, Dissenting J. state laws intended. The of treatment under ity law a lawful exercise whether police given remain to this Such and must court. is still open, open, and sale of intoxi- a law forbid manufacture entirely may Or be valid. may provide equal regula- cating liquors sale of domestic and tions for inspection imported But the State -under the Con- cannot, and be valid. .which, referred establish a to, system gressional legislation com- between interstate and domestic effect, discriminates make and are-admitted to use which- .commodities merce n is sufficient lawful. . casfe present- ... do, manufacture, when a State hold, as we recognizes dis- lawful, sale and use"of cannot intoxicating liquors of such articles criminate the against bringing import- from other that such is void as States; them ing legislation to Interstate and an of Cominerce preference hindrance unjust the of the State as similar products products enacting against of other States.” the the that, conclusion reached was as respected Accordingly (cid:127) the

residents of State of South Carolina to desiring import the wines and for their own act in use, foreign liquors in that case was void. (cid:127) In arose later statute, the under a case, present court Scott that the act follows v. Donald is .invalid holding the to be residents of importation applied by sought own of other for their but holds that the residents use, State in the cannot wines and and sell them 'States' import are such articles recognized packages, although n the and sale. as lawful of use manufacture, State subjects not the of the court concedes that it is within The power even, of of when reinforced act .State, Congress August, to one resident State T890, ship deprive right “ own be- into “another to a for his State resident of the United from cause such derived Constitution state law,” yet and does rest States, grant holds that the act of South Carolina can declare validly other for the of sale from purpose liquors imported (cid:127)in confiscated, can be seized and com- original packages, A.W. VANDENCOOK COMPANY (No. 1). Sliiras, McKenna, Opinion: J., Duller, C.J., Dissenting J. carrier thereof and the fine,

mon if subjected he consignee, from the removes depot pays freight express to a fine of five hundred thereon, subjected dollars, charges of twelve months at hard and to an labor in the imprisonment state penitentiary. forbids Interstate

Such Commerce in legislation manifestly whose within the articles manufacture sale State are view of the and, decisions of this previous court, permitted, can defended of the only act of by invoking provisions seems to be the This which the theory upon Congress. opin- shown, ion of proceeds, majority following' “ claim that the state statement: statute is unconstitu- because it sell tional deprives imported liquors that, rests on the original packages, assumption law is a Interstate regulation Commerce, because it of an act which, forbids doing consequence per- missive from act of grant resulting Congress, had the lawful to do. undoubtedly Indeed, entire which it is endeavored to maintain the conten- argument tion arises from from view the as to the excluding sale change the act intoxicating liquors arising Congress.” if the can

But, act operate validly authorize the State to forbid the sale original packages imported kind articles same with those whose manufacture and within the amI permitted unable regulated, it cannot also see authorize the State why to for- operate bid the use. Once concede that it importation is competent for to abdicate its control over Interstate Congress Commerce in articles whose sale use are manufacture, and lawful within State, and confer to to forbid of such for must articles it follow that it sale, importation would be for to authorize the equally competent Congress State to forbid the of such articles for use. importation And, if be not for it to authorize a conversely, Congress competent to forbid the for use whose of articles use in importation domestic commerce so it would not be lawful, competent for to a to authorize State forbid Congress importation-for sale in lawful. of articles whose domestic commerce is TERM, 1897. C.J., Fuller, McKenna, Shiras, J., Opinion: J.

Dissenting to in- attribute an to I am Congress unwilling, altogether Interstate Commerce in to abandon protection dention for sale, use or of food or whether drink, articles personal a State as lawful similar articles are treated subjects where If were the intention of Con- commerce. of domestic such I should be 1890, in the act of compelled August, gress as invalid. The control such regulation legislation regard are the most im- commerce and interstate among of foreign and, the National powers legislature, portant possessed court, were has often been said potent among most which led to the establishment Constitution. causes from hostile commerce The conceded protecting purpose be defeated if could would action between States Congress matters, withdraw the exercise of its such powers turn them to the States. over legislatures no intended But there is reason suppose Reasona- abdication in the instance. such act of present can' act 8, and effect given August meaning ble. raise a construction as would 1890, without giving such its serious constitutionality. of its that, Its bona if, exercise plain meaning fide the State finds it declare that all necessary

police power, or other distilled is of detri fermented, intoxicating liquor and that use and mental character, consumption against health and of its morals, inhabitants, safety may good on that with effect us assumption, equal legislate, or whether of domestic manufacture. Such imported take form of total may prohibition, legislation re in In 140 U. Rahrer, we held S. valid, under statute the State Kansas. The articles Ivere prohibited taken commerce, thus out of the whether interstate sphere and no discriminations were made or at domestic, thereby of other States. tempted adversely persons property Or the seek to the sale of intoxicat- may legislation regulate if the in the fair are reasonable, ing liquors, regulations im- exercise of the alike articles police power, applicable (cid:127) and to those' made in their validity may ported well be without the Federal control sustained, infringing upon of Interstate Commerce.- v. W. A. VANDERCOOK COMPANY (No. 1). 463 Fuller, Opinion: Shiras, J., C.J.,

Dissenting McKenna, J. if Carolina, Thus the State of South of instead prohibiting sale imported liquors imported packages altogether them to use, her own had seen fit to confiscating pre- n —(cid:127) scribe reasonable the sale such, for instance, regulations as forbade its or in the taking place Sunday, time, night to be drunk on the or to be made'to if premises, minors, and likewise the sale of domestic applied regulations liquors — the case be then deemed to fall within the might proper exercise police power.

Far different is the nature these acts provisions South Carolina. do not to forbid either They pretend manufacture or sale of do intoxicating liquors. They not reasonable provide system inspection, calculated to do not public imposition. They seek to sub- protect the. sale to reasonable but do ject regulations, contain provi- if which, sions carried into effect, would wholly prevent makers owners wines and made in. foreign countries or the other States from exercising free under commerce the-Constitution. ’At most, can said that such can to send only persons permitted their if into South Carolina the state property authorities fit them that allow privilege. think even if allowed this restricted

Nor, privilege importation, to sell their for what they it is permitted worth property in the because can sell a. market, they only through county who is bond dispenser, give sum compelled penal of three thousand- conditioned that he dollars, will not 'sell at a other than that intoxicating fixed price state board of control. This provision- merely hampers the citizens of the other States their exercise of the right of trade and commerce, but the residents of the deprives State of the of a articles commercial char- purchase acter at prices regulated by open competition. be said that such a may construction of the act' Con- — would it of

gress actual deprive operation and laws of the would be left States were before just its passage. But, not courts have said infrequently, there are statutes that are of the law as merely declaratory TERM, 1897. Duller, C.J., McKenna, Shiras, J., Opinion:

Dissenting J. And such statutes are not it existed. declaratory previously to or law, when serve elucidate without value they existing to when decisions or enactments remove uncertainty prior be re- well to corifliot. The act may supposed the boundaries a to define as garded legislative attempt to interstate Federal and state between powers respect in the cases court, this ; commerce and intoxicating liquors v. and recent case Donald, of In re Rahrer and of Scott it. But it ante, cannot, of v. has so treated Iowa, 412, Rhodes to I be either or as an effort as sustained think, interpreted of Com- the control matters Interstate transfer regulative the to the merce from Nation States. it, as I fails to read opinion majority, recognize court, well this seems considered decisions of and

frequent to a brief reference to them. justify an act of

In 12 the State Brown Wheat. Maryland, on Maryland penalties importers foreign imposing articles or wines and commodities, including spirituous liquors, if a should sell the same wfithout first procured having authorities, from the state held license was repugnant Constitution of the United States, .provision “ no "without consent shall, declares Congress, what lay duty any impost, imports exports, except be absolutely necessary may executing inspection to that have which declares that shall laws,” “ to "with nations, commerce among power regulate foreign with In course the Indian tribes.” several “ The Chief Justice Marshall said: his object reasoning would as defeated be Constitution completely power- instant it the article in hands of tax the importer as tax it while landed, port. power entering no a' effect, There is between difference, power prohibit anof article and a its introduction sale power prohibit into The one would be a country. necessary consequence be if could No none would goods other. imported (cid:127) n sold.”- “ If reaches : commerce And this again power regulate must of a exercised, interior be there may COMPANY (No. w. A.W. VANDERCOOK 1). J., Opinion: Shiras, Fuller, C.J., McKenna,

Dissenting J. of those articles which' be capable authorizing one of. intercourse; is its most ordi introduces. Commerce is traffic. It inconceivable that the nary ingredients power authorize when the most traffic, given comprehen with the intent that its should be com terms, sive efficacy when, at should cease its continuance is plete, point to its value. To what should the purpose power indispensable with the to allow given, importation unaccompanied ? to authorize a sale of Sale is thing imported object an and is essential of that inter importation, ingredient course, of which constitutes a importation part.

essential an to the existence of indispensable ingredient, the entire then, itself. It must be thing, importation as-a considered component power part regulate commerce. has a not to authorize right, only but to authorize the . sell. . . importation, importer The claimed inis, nature, conflict power with that or less extent given Congress; greater in which it not enter into the exercised does may inquiry its existence.” concerning v.

Walling 446, 116 U. S. was a case wherein Michigan, a statute of the brought validity State of a tax or Michigan, imposed duty persons who, their of business within the having not principal place State, business of engage selling liquors, shipped into the and it that a tax State; was held discriminating a imposed State, products operating disadvantage of other when States introduced into the first mentioned State, is, in of commerce between effect, regulation States, as such a of the conferred usurpation power the Constitution contention upon Congress. Replying on behalf of the statute, that it was in the exercise passed of the of the Mr. Justice said: police State, power Bradley “ This would it did be a the act if not perfect justification discriminate the. citizens and of other States products against in a matter of and thus commerce between usurp one of national of the The prerogatives legislature. police to control the inhibitions of Fed- cannot be set up

vox.. cx.xx—30

466 TERM, 1897. J., Opinion: Shiras,

Dissenting Fuller, C.J., McKenna, J. eral or the Constitution, of the United powers States Govern- created ment thereby.*’

In Robbins Shelby District, 120 County Taxing U. S. 489, held was. that interstate commerce cannot be taxed at all even by State, the same though amount of tax should be laid on commerce, domestic or that which is carried on solely within the State.

A the State of Iowa common law.of carrier forbidding any from within that State, bringing any person corporation, any other State or intoxicating liquors Territory, a, without from the state authorities, was held void permit the case of Bowman v. & Northwestern Chicago Railway, U. S. and the 465, court, Mr. Justice through Matthews, said : “ Here is the-limit between the of the State sovereign power and the That is to that which does power. say, Federal. commerce within the .belong jurisdiction police and that which does (cid:127)power to commerce belong is within the of the United States. . . . jurisdiction same process legislation reasoning adopted by State and its courts would within the bring police power any article of that a State wish to consumption exclude,' might whether to' that which was drank or to food and clothing.” an act passed

'By- legislative assembly District of Columbia subjected persons selling imported goods without a license to and this act was held invalid in penalties, v. Hennick, 129 U. and in Stoutenburg 141; S. disposing the contention that be must as Congress' regarded having or authorized this Mr. Chief Justice adopted legislation, “In our Fuller said: for the reasons judgment Congress, could not have to enact the third given, delegated clause section con twenty-first act assembly, to include business such as Hennick; strued there agents ,is record it this that en nothing justify assumption to do for the so, deavored to the District were powers granted rej acts several merely, municipal although by ’ or modified of this these parts particular by-law, pealed parts were within the and such as were scope separably operative so that this can action, municipal Congressional legislation (No. 1). v. W. COMPANY 467 A. VANDERCOOK McKenna, J., Fuller, C.J., Shiras, J. Opinion:

Dissenting irre clause, tbe objectionable to as ratifying resorted not which could not have that to ratify of the inability spective (cid:127) authorized.” been originally held in- S. this court Barber, U. In Minnesota made it which a Minnesota, the State of statute valid a to sell fresh for one any of fine or imprisonment matter had not been inspected lamb mutton, pork beef, to the contention, in the act. Eeferring manner prescribed no discrimination there was State, in behalf for the of other States and business the products against an of animals on that the statute inspection requiring reason for the condition selling as a hoof, privilege of such alike to all owners animals, State, applicable of other States, or citizens Minnesota citizens of whether “: Harlan, said To this we Mr. Justice court, through its face, statute apply equally may, upon answer be a Inter- States, of all the yet regulation the people A not establish. burden which a State may state Commerce is not to be sus- Interstate Commerce a State imposed it alike to the statute imposing applies tained because simply the States, people of all including people Minnesota have much such statute. people enacting of that inter- State, the enactments to protection against the States, commerce with the freedom of among fering this'statute of other States. Although have the people directed terms, bringing against avowedly, effect of other necessary Minnesota of the products States, as with other involved or affect commerce is to burden of sale into that in the purposes transportation however free mutton or veal, of all fresh there, beef, pork, been the animals from which was have from disease may taken.” v. Donald

We did not Scott pass upon find necessary should seek to es of a whereby...a scheme validity commerce, and to in articles of as a trader punish tablish itself deal in such who should attempt as criminals persons fit court seen Nor has the to'discuss articles. ' if confined articles of that, case. may present TERM, 1897. Syllabus. a scheme such not be production, might open objec Federal, tions on But where a grounds. proposes create a in articles which its own monopoly legislation recog nizes as sale and subjects manufacture, use, and proper where are those'articles international and Interstate part I too Commerce, submit, to call for is, plain argument such an does not with that freedom of trade attempt comport and commerce, to which is one of the most preserve important of our Federal purposes system.

If views these then the acts of sound, South Carolina in so far as seek to question, citizens of prevent for their use own wines importing liquors," forbid, and reasonable arbitrarily con- regulations, trol articles when sales are void as an uncon- imported, interference with Interstate stitutional Commerce.

-I think the'decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. I am authorized to state that the Chief Justice and Mr. concur in the Justice McKenna views of this opinion. A. W. VANDERCOOK COMPANY (No. 2). COURT THE CIRCUIT OF ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES THE FOR OF DISTRICT CAROLINA. SOUTH Argued No. 515. March 1898. Decided 9, 10, 9, 1898. May determining pleading really from the face of a In whether the amount jurisdiction dispute is sufficient confer court the United States, it settled that if from the nature of the case as stated in the pleadings legally judgment necessary there could not be a an amount jurisdiction, jurisdiction though damages cannot attach even a at snip. larger be laid the declaration having courts of South that in an Carolina held action of conse- trover quential damages recoverable, damage . are not claimed case, below, plaintiff consequential being omitting damages, it, necessary give jurisdiction the sum the Circuit than Court le$s that, complaint, on the face of the court follows was without jurisdiction over the action. >

Case Details

Case Name: Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 9, 1898

Citation: 170 U.S. 438

Docket Number: 1; 514

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS