*1 TERM, 1897. Opinion of Court. RHODES v. IOWA. ERROR TO THE THE SUPREME COURT OF STATE OF IOWA. Argued

No. 21. 1898. Decided February 23, May 9, 1898. Iowa, provides express Section 1553 of the any code which that “if company, railway company any person employ or agent any or in the carrier, express company, any any person employ or of common or .carrier, any person any transport common or if convey other shall or points, place or from one between to another within this for ' person persons corporation, any liquors, other or or intoxicating without having first been furnished a from with certificate and under the seal of county county liquor transported auditor of the said is to be transportation, consigned conveyed or is for or within which is to be place, person certifying consignee to whom said liquor transported, conveyed delivered, is to be authorized sell corporation intoxicating county, company, such in such person offending, them, agent company, so and each of and of said shall, corporation person thereof, offending, conviction pay fined in the sum of one for each hundred dollars offence costs prosecution, attorney and the costs shall fee to include reasonable paid county fund, assessed which shall be into the county jail prosecu- committed to stand until such fine and costs paid,” spirituous liquors, are apply tion be held to a box of cannot shipped by point rail from a Illinois to citizen of at his Iowa resi- point shipment dence that State in transit from its to its while de- livery consignee, repugnant causing the to be without Iowa Law to the Constitution of the United States. platform Moving goods put in the station from on are freight part on arrival of the warehduse is a interstate commerce transportation. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Robert Mather in error. plaintiff Mr. Milton Remley, attorney general . for defendant error

Mr. Justice White court. delivered the Railroad Chicago, Burlington Quincy Company 1891, common was, carrier, under laws incorporated

EHODES v.

Opinion of the Court. Illinois, others a line operated among railway Dallas, Illinois, Iowa, Burlington, said beyond point. *2 and The Western Burlington was, at Bailway Company same a common date, carrier, under the incorporated laws of and Iowa, line of from operated'a railway Iowa, -Burlington, to in that Oskaloosa State, with stations at intervening points, one which was Both Brighton Washington County. (cid:127)these had a at corporations depot which Burlington, used. The two jointly at the had, carriers time stated and thereto, years previous between themselves joint freight tariffs, under a transportation, single through way was from merchandise station bill, on either given station on the lines the line of the other. ' In the Dallas August, Transportation deliv- Company ered thé and Bailroad at Chicago, Burlington Quincy Dallas, a wooden box stated to contain Illinois, groceries consigned Iowa. William It had been the Horn, habit of Brighton, of the Dallas before this date intoxicat- agent company ship over-the and ing liquors Chicago, Burlington Quincy.

box in was for as receipted through was freight in accordance billed with the custom through stated, above was taken to there delivered-to the Bur- Burlington, and Western whom it was carried to lington company, itsOn there, was Brighton. package placed by the trainmen on station platform, afterwards shortly who was the error, station plaintiff agent Burling- and-Western, ton of his discharge opened duties. door house and moved the box a freight freight which was about six feet from the warehouse, In platform. an hour about thereafter box was seized a constable under search on the that it contained warrant, intoxi- ground to be the truth, cating liquors, proved subsequently the- condemned and ordered to be was liquor destroyed, At the order was executed. the time of the seizure the freight was due to the was It admitted railways unpaid. charge on the there rail- receiving nothing package notify of its can unless such contents, way knowledge imputed from nature of the Dallas com- dealings previous ' TERM, OCTOBER.

Opinion of the Court. with the There railway. was, however, pany testimony show- the railroad who moved the box from ing agent freight to the warehouse had reason to know or platform suspect contained since it.was that, the arrival liquor proven at of the box mail carrier called Brighton, the station for a and asked to William package Horn, consigned stating that one expeeted Dallas, that it would contain intoxicating liquor. error was information plaintiff proceeded against by

before a him with justice peace, the unlawful charging transportation intoxicating liquors conveyed Burling- ton to Iowa. This Brighton, was under the prosecution pro- visions statutes of the of Iowa, to which we shall refer. He was convicted and hereafter sentenced to pay fine of An from this $10.0. sentence was taken appeal district where it was in which affirmed, court, among *3 it other was the defences, alleged package question was the of the State of jurisdiction Iowa, be- the time cause at of its removal from the to the platform warehouse it inwas course of interstate freight commerce The district court affirmed the con- transportation. having an viction, was taken to the of Court the appeal Supreme where the Iowa, State of also below was affirmed. judgment Rhodes, 90 Iowa, State v. 496. To this of affirm- judgment writ of error is ance prosecuted.

The for sole consideration is question presented whether the the State of Iowa statute of can be held to box apply whilst it inwas transit from-its of point shipment, Dallas, Illinois, at the to' delivery consignee point ' it was which That is to whether the law of consigned. say, can be made Iowa apply shipment State.of of Illinois, the State of delivery without .the merchandise, Iowa law to be causing repugnant of to the Constitution the United States.

In v. Bowman & Northwestern 1888, 125 Chicago Railway, 465, this court U. S. was called to determine the validity aof statute of the State of which was Iowa, it asserted was to the third clause section of article I repugnant

Opinion of Court. of the United because its Constitution provisions to a interstate commerce. The amounted facts regulation then arose were controversy presented briefly beer were offered in State of Illinois Kegs follows: to a common carrier line of the States railway operating and Iowa. The beer was to a Illinois consigned point it, and the carrier refused to receive on the Iowa, ground the statute of Iowa made it unlawful to bring intoxicating within the limits of that when accom except with a the Iowa law certificate, panied specified pro vided should under be granted particular exceptional The one whom the beer was tendered to the conditions. of Illinois sued the railroad com carrier the State thereupon claimed to have arisen from its refusal pany damages merchandise. railway receive carry company it in its defended on the was refusal ground justified on the This, because of the Iowa statute. provision not to be an be defence, other was asserted hand, adequate it that the Iowa void, cause was claimed statute whólly of interstate commerce. as it'constituted regulation law therefrom was whether the Iowa sole issue pro árising and thus involved carrier, tected determining refusing to the Con of the State was whether statute repugnant After consideration, States. stitution of the United great in so far as law of was held that the the State to the interstate commerce, interstate repugnant affected void. It was and was Constitution, commerce clause of from one State merchandise decided that transportation and was commerce, pro ivas into and across another from the moment laws from the of state tected- operation *4 of the to the journey in transit and whilst ending up shipment to place of the to the consignee delivery goods course of its in. the The court were they consigned. whether goods shipped to the adverted opinion question clause commerce to be continued protected to and including and up after their delivery consignee to whom they the one their sale the original package as it was decide the did not but delivered, question, had been TERM, Opinion . of the Court. not essential to do so. to however, Referring subject, court said (pp. 499-500): “ It and convenient useful in the execution might very within the State to extend the policy prohibition of the State territorial But- such powers its limits. beyond extraterritorial cannot be im- assumed such an powers upon On the the nature of the case plication. contradicts contrary, their existence. For if to one State, belong they-belong to all, cannot exercised severally independently. would that conflict con- attempt necessarily produce fusion which it was the of the Constitution* very purpose of national delegations power prevent.

“It is easier to that the think importation right abroad, and from one' in State to transportation another, cludes, by necessary implication, right importer sell unbroken at the where the transit termi packages for the nates; and motive very of that branch of purpose commerce which consists is that other and transportation act of commerce which consists sale and consequent of the commodities exchange Such, indeed, transported. decided in the case Brown v. point Maryland, 12 Wheat. as to with the commerce, state foreign express in the ment, of Chief opinion Justice that the con Marshall, clusion would be the same in a case of commerce among But it States. is not now to necessary express because that does not arise in the point, question n case. The line which present^ precise transaction, divides the so far as it or interstate belongs commerce, foreign internal domestic commerce of the we are called now It delineate. say enough or forbid sale of a tlje after regulate commodity, has been into the does not with brought carry its introduction right prevent by transportation from another State.”

Subsequently, Hardin, U. Leisy v. S. (1890) which was thus arose reserved Bowman case and it was adjudication, held that the to sell merchandise in the from inter free imported original'package

Opinion of the .Court. of the Constitution of .the ference state laws protected such, to sale the- goods brought United up of in' with the -mass not- property State were commingled the court' said its conclusions (p. the State. Summing up iii Illinois, are citizens of error are. plaintiffs 124): but into Iowa beer and have no import pharmacists ^permit, (cid:127) as described. Under sell original packages', which they &c. Co., Bowman v. Railway decision Chicago supra, our into that State, and, to beer the right import they had to have sell which .we the view expressed, com act alone would become which mingled it, by within the State. Up;to point, mon -property mass in the absence-of- hold that, Congressional time we per had no interfere do State so, mission to. of- action, other seizure, prohibition -importation or any n or non-resident importer.” sale -foreign .the and under which statute prose- 'The is before us was as follows: instituted, now cution- or '“If express company, railway any any company agent or of any express any or employ company, person common carrier, or of. common any any person- employ or if. shall or carrier, other transport convey any person - or from one another within between .place points,' . /this or or for other -Staté, person persons corporation,, without first been furnished with liquors, having intoxicating under and seal auditor county certificate .the. to be is said or’- con- transported county, liquor which it is to be or within transportation, conveyed signed consignée person place, certifying is to. delivered conveyed said whom be liquor- transported, in'such authorized to sell county, such intoxicating liquors ..is and each so person offending, company, corporation of said them, corporation company, any agent per^ in, be-fined shall, thereof, son. conviction offending, upon- forgeach. offence, the sum of one dollars pay. hundred include a reasonable shall the costs costs prosecution, shali . fee to be assessed attorney paid stand committed into the fund, the-county jail county (cid:127) (cid:127) VOL. CLXX —27 TERM, 1897.

Opinion of the Court. until such fine and costs of are The offence prosecution paid. herein defined shall be held shall be held complete, *6 to have the been committed in State, any county through or to which said are or transported, in intoxicating liquors same is or in which the unloaded which transportation, said, or are delivered. conveyed place place It the of the several auditors shall be duty the county the State to issue herein certificate contemplated any per- son the certificate issued shall permit, having dated when and shall the date at issued, truly specify the shown records. Pro- permit expires, county as that however, tlie defendant as a vided, show defence may hereunder evidence character by preponderance its contents were un- circumstances shipment known him.” Code, section (Iowa paragraph 2410, Annotated McClain’s Code of Iowa.) is identical with the This statute one which was held to be in unconstitutional the Bowman case, that the latter except words contained the within this State,” “knowingly bring been stricken an these words out amendment having after decision the Bowman case. In adopted other the statute was under words, review the Bowman “ if case provided, any or express company, railway company any person employ agent any express company, if or of carrier, common other shall know- person within this State, between ingly bring transport convey or from one to another within the points place whilst State,” the statute now before us the same provides exactly thing, “ ” the words that within this except knowingly bring are omitted. It is hence manifest that the statute, as present t'he Court of has interpreted by Supreme exactly it would have did contain the words found in significance the act reviewed in the Bowman case. It follows that law us as now, the exact is below, interpreted equiva- lent of the statute which once has before been declared court to be This Constitution. result in repugnant reason is inevitable, since the court words, below held as found in the were not confined to present law, transporta-

Opinion of the Court. the within but related to of commodifies'originating tion State. This from another hence sub- made ruling (cid:127)shipments from another State to the control made jects shipments arrival of the once on the merchandise at the statute before the limits the territorial completion if as the words completely shipment, ” State were the statute. As within this yet bring from one Bowman case held ship embraced of have the State into another' necessity right delivered at destination, carried to goods it follows that an to the consignee, interpretation point w;hich the State law stop gives present the State at the state and before their line, goods shipped within the rule announced in' destination, directly case. the Bowman decision which the Bowman

The fundamental right *7 the of state laws to operation by held case protected the States was of of the United the continuity Constitution one, into another State from- of shipment goods coming the of and the consignment, the point transmission point'of covered contract. of the delivery there accomplishment of the United States is the Constitution This of protection (cid:127) now under its review, as statute denied pro- plainly (cid:127) below. The the court power are interpreted visions it did the State not case was possess held in the Bowman was n the state line by interstate shipments that of stopping their course from and intercepting their continuity breaking of consummation. of point point origin is these upheld by of to exert very powers plainly State that if the It follows ruling decision rendered below. here it presented,

Bowman case is question applicable of lead to reversal and must is decisive of this controversy, it is, however, The claim below rendered. the judgment below rested its that the court judg- was upon ground this act of of that under and virtue provisions ment, c. 26 Stat. 8, 1890, of the ruling August Congress effect no of the act case the Bowman is longer apposite, as Congress State Iowa to confer upon question OCTOBER TERM, 1897. Opinion of the Court. to its statutory merchandise regulations from another State the moment it shipped reached the line of the State of and. before the consummation of the con- tract arrival at its shipment by destination and delivery there to the And it tois consignee. that the dis- question cussion at bar has related, and mainly decision ' of the cause really depends.

It is effect gainsaid of the act of Congress the receiver deprive from another goods shipped of all sell the same in the State of Iowa in violation but whilst it laws; is thus conceded that the act of Con has allowed the Iowa law to attach to gress when property State before sale, brought when otherwise would not have done so until after bn sale, con other hand, is tended that the act of in no Congress way provides of Iowa should before the consummation de apply laws of the interstate commerce transaction. livery To otherwise construe the act of it is would claimed, cause it to Congress, to the statutes of Iowa give extraterritorial operation, would render the act to the Constitu Congress repugnant tion of the United States. It has been settled that the effect (cid:127) -of the act of: is to allow the statutes of the several States sale. operate packages imported liquor re In 140 U. S. Rahrer, ' Did the act of to' referred attach the operate of the State of Iowa to. legislation goods moment reached the state line, before the comple- and. tion of the act at the transportation, by point arriving and the there to the consignment then delivery consignee *8 the ? The'act of pivotal question is as follows: all fermented,

“.That distilled or other intoxicating liquors or into State or or liquids transported Territory remaining therein for use, sale or consumption, therein, shall, storage arrival such State or the Territory, subject oper- ation and effect the laws of such State or enacted Territory, the exercise to the-same "extent and in powers, police the same manner as or though liquids liquors been or such' State and shall' .Territory, not-be produced exempt

Opinion the Court. therein in introduced therefrom reason being original or otherwise.” packages “ or The words arrival in State shall Territory of such and effect of the laws State operation be held to mean arrival at' the one sense might Territory,” would necessitate isolat- line. But to them state -sointerpret the act, the entire context of would these words from ing -other contained a construction destructive of compel provisions But violate the fundamental rule therein. this would requir- a law as a whole, that be construed by distorting ing It word found in it. is con- clearly magnifying particular that “arrival” the that the word templated signified goods it is into the since that should come provided actually “ all or other fermented, distilled intoxicating liquids is and this further a State "or into Territory,” transported “or therein for accentuated the other remaining provision, therein.” sale use, consumption, storage This in reason hold that '. it. impossible makes language ” “ at the law intended that the word should mean into line, state since goods presupposes coming The fair State for sale or “use, storage.” .consumption, which are conditions, inference of these the enumeration arise made that the time could when all-embracing, when the operation which to determine the test-by period into the State. of the state attach to law-should brought goods “ arrival,” which is nec- But to word uphold meaning below, forces the the state as construed law, support essary authorized state conclusion the act of Congress all. This follows laws to forbid bringing the line, then the from the fact if arrival means crossing a violation the state act of into the State would be crossing law is to for- of' law, hence operation necessarily beyond bid the line and remaining crossing compel ” word arrival be that Thus, if construction same. the state statute it must be

which is claimed for held it, be- line confessedly attached state beyond operated act of it. time intended fore the when it was should take effect. *9 TERM,

Opinion of the Court.- But the subtle of words and niceties of signification the verbal distinction no furnish safe act the guide construing of On the it should- be Congress. contrary, interpreted fundamental, enforced the rule of out light carrying its of the which it purpose object, affording remedy intended to create, of it the which was defeating wrong its to frustrate. of act the purpose Undoubtedly purpose was' to enable the laws of the several States to control the character of merchandise therein enumerated at an earlier date than would have been otherwise the it case, but is that the act of equally manifests no unquestionable to confer purpose States the to their give an statutes extraterritorial so as to operation subject persons borders- the restraints of their property beyond their laws. If act be as construed reaching (cid:127) contract for interstate made another State, the shipment effect must be to necessary to the laws the several give States extraterritorial for, as held the Bowman operation, case, inevitable for- a state law to consequence allowing bid interstate would- merchandise shipments destroy to contract the limits of State for beyond .If the construction claimed it would shipments. upheld, inbe of each State to com- every compel train merce borders, its stop crossing discharge lest the line it within the freight, crossing carry might merchandise covered character named inhibitions of state statute. The forcé of this view well is illustrated the conclusions of the court it below, where is said:

“Was the defendant, the removal of the liquor, engaged or. it within the of our transporting conveying meaning statute? The of the statute is broad language enough cover act defendant in from the removing liquor He one room the platform freight depot. instruments act necessary complete transportation. so, If be nót thén he within-the act, is terms of1the clearly ‘ he one another within conveyed liquor point His the distance State.’ be determined guilt v.

Opinion the Court. distance was but his he conveying conveyed package, *10 mak With the of the law. a violation propriety legislation, with an act a crime, punish such severity ing to do.” ment we have act, attached nothing doing act of If it had been the intention of the provide commerce for at the state line interstate the stoppage every in the act, to the merchandise named such contract relating fact that have been would easy expression. purpose on the that, was not contrary, conveyed, of the statute relates to the of the goods receipt language State or sale use, “into any Territory consumption, the correctness of the therein,” negatives interpretation storage into for the that the Territory holding receipt is thrown named could never take place. Light purposes of the act another consideration. by spirit purpose case was decided 1888, The Bowman Leisy announced in the act under con- v. Hardin was April, 1890. sideration was these approved August Considering to infer' that the of the act dates, is reasonable provisions intended to cause the were by authority legislative of the States attach intoxicating liquors coming respective the States an after the con- by only shipment, the- sale of the summation of the but before mer- shipment, that the one merchandise of the chandise, is, receiving full character whilst to use should, named retaining right no to sell free from the re- same, longer enjoy right as to sale created state strictions right legislation, the decision v. Hardin declared Leisy just previously to exist. of the

This view and effect language gives meaning act that such merchandise “shall not be providing exempt ” therefrom reason of (legislative power State) being introduced therein otherwise.” original packages no if These words have the act place meaning pur- was to attach the of the State to the goods pose termination the interstate commerce shipment. words at the time had, “original passage packages” with the act the decisions of this reference acquired TERM, Opinion of the Court. -to the of the Constitution a construction technical meaning, merchandise signifying entitled packages ,to be sold within a State the receiver thereof, although state laws forbid the sale of merchandise of like char- might acter not in'such'packages.

Whilst it is true that the to sell free from state inter- right (cid:127)ference interstate commerce was held in Leisy merchandise Hardin to be an essential incident to interstate commerce, incident, but an as the contract of yet sale a State in its nature was to the control of the usually subject legisla- tive On the other authority hand, State.

contract for the of merchandise from transportation one State into or across another involved interstate commerce in its fundamental in its essence rela- aspect, imported very tion which must be laws necessarily governed apart *11 laws several States, since it embraced a contract which must under come the laws of more than one State. to submit the incidental purpose sell to-the of state should not without authority .dominion- the clearest of sub- implication imply purpose held to state laws a contract which in its jecting very object nature not of such even if the con- susceptible regulation stitutional to do so as .to which existed, ‘no opinion And- this view is illustrated expressed. cogently case, where it said (pp. 486-487): Bowman Has the law Iowa extraterritorial force which does to the law.of the State of the law Illinois ? If belong Iowa and the forbids law of Illinois requires delivery, which ..of shall- How can transportation, prevail? two the former make void the latter In view of this ?. necessary if the" law it be valid, operation language court in the case of v. De Cuir, Hall 95 U. S. 488, is n ‘ in. It was there said: But we think it exactly point. may be said that state which seeks to safely legislation, impose direct burden or to commerce, interfere di ‘upon with its' does encroach freedom, the exclusive rectly upon statute now under power Congress. consideration, The' It does not adt our-opinion, occupies position. v.

Opinion Court. local instruments to be after business employed through but business as State, coming directly upon from within. comes into from without or out the State goes While it to control the carrier when only engaged purports within the it must influence his conduct to State, necessarily of his business some extent the management throughout his entire His taken of. disposition passengers up voyage. within to be down within the taken up put carried cannot but affect or less without, degree greater those taken without and and sometimes within, up brought those within and down without. A taken put passenger up in the cabin for the of whites without the State set use apart when within, the boat comes share accommodations must, of that on cabin with such colored come board may persons if the law is It was to meet afterwards, enforced. just the commercial in the Constitution was case clause The river adopted. Mississippi passes through along borders of ten different and its tributaries reach many more. The commerce these waters is immense, concern. If each a matter of national regulation clearly of carriers while State was at the conduct liberty regulate could not within its the confusion follow likely jurisdiction, but be and unnecessary inconvenience productive great State could its own Each hardship. provide passengers own of its transportation freight, regardless regulate it could more; of the interests others. prescribe Nay, which the carrier must be within the rules by governed from without. respect passengers property brought one or its he On side of river might required tributaries *12 and Com rules, to observe one set'of on the other another. in the merce cannot flourish midst of such embarrassments. can with No carrier of conduct his business satis passengers if on faction to or comfort to those himself, him, employing colored, one side of a both white and state his.passengers, line other must be thé same and on the cabin, permitted occupy which he separate. Uniformity regulations by kept to be end to the other of his route-is from one .a governed it which is his and secure business^, necessity Congress, . TERM, 1897. Harlan, Gray, Brown, JJ. untrammelled state has been with lines, invested exclusive what legislative determining regula ” shall tions be.’

And it was doubtless this construction which caused the court to observe In re 140 U. S. opinion Rahrer, 545, 552, that the act of them “divests (objects of that commerce character at an earlier shipment) period than would time otherwise be the case.” We think inter- statute all its preting light provisions, did not intended to and cause State to to an attach interstate commerce whilst the mer- shipmént, inwas transit under chandise and until shipment, at the destination and there to the point delivery and of course this conclusion renders consignee, entirely if consider whether the act of unnecessary to make submitted interstate commerce shipments to state control it would be to the Constitution. repugnant

It follows from this conclusion that as the'.act for which in error was consisted convicted, plaintiff from the to the moving goods plátform warehouse, freight was a the interstate commerce part was- transportation, done the law of- Iowa could attach to constitutionally conviction was goods, erroneous, judgment is, below therefore,

Reversed. with whom concurred Mr. Gray, Justice Mr. Justice dissenting. Harlan Justice Brown, Mr. Harlan, Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Brown and are con- myself strained to dissent from this us to judgment, appears due each deny reserved to police .effect' power, the Constitution of the United Con- recognized in' the act of gress c. 8, 1890, known August 728, commonly as the Wilson act. Stat. 313. and effect of purpose act understood this be best may recalling history law subject. within reasonable order keep compass,,

In

RHODES v. IOWA. 427 Dissenting Gray, Harlan, Brown, JJ. shall,

we decisions of this referring previous as far as ourselves, confine to those decisions possible, to the traffic in relate directly intoxicating liquors. of the manufacture, sale and use regulation intoxi has been always as

cating liquors recognized subject pecul several iarly police power States appertaining License 5 How. cases, 504; v. respectively. Bartemeyer 18 v. 129; Massachusetts, Wall. Beer Co. U. S. 25; 97 Foster v. 112 U. S. Kansas, 201; v. 123 Mugler Kansas, S. 623; U. Kidd v. 128 U. S. Pearson, 1; v. Eilenbecker Plymouth 134 S. 31. U. County, how far the reserved Upon police (cid:127)

each State over this is affected to Con- grant commerce gress regulate several among there have been and even conflicting opinions, varying decisions, at different periods.

The earliest cases came before this court, concerning extent each State over police power intoxicating were Thurlow borders, v. liquors Massachusetts, v. Island and Peirce v. Fletcher Rhode New de Hampshire, cided in under 1847, name reported License 5 cases, How. 504.

In Peirce v. New a statute of New Hampshire, Hampshire, sales without prohibiting intoxicating person a license from authorities, licenses municipal authorizing within the granted held only persons residing State, all be constitutional justices valid, bj applied a barrel of into New intoxicating liquors, brought Hampshire from another and sold in New the im- Hampshire by unbroken and in the barrel, samé same condi- porter, — tion which it had been there been no brought having legislation Congress upon subject.

That decision was afterwards cited with repeatedly approval. v. 3 Gilman 713, 730; Wall. Beer Co. v. Massa Philadelphia, chusetts, 25, 33; 97 U. S. Mobile v. 102 County Kimball, U. S. 691, 701; S. Kansas, U. 658. And Mugler several cases of a State, statutes validity taxing.the sale from another intjxicating liquors brought OCTOBER, TERM,

n Brown, Harlan, Opinion: Gray, JJ. *14 whether the statutes as treated depending upon question’ manufactured of in favor discrimination made any v. 148; 8 Tiernan v. Wall. Lott, Hinson within State. 116 U. S. 446, 102 v. 123; Michigan, U. S. Rinker, Walling 460. of regulate whether power Congress

The question the several States and with nations among commerce foreign of much exclusive, subject is paramount, only when 1851, until of from an early period diversity v. Board Mr. Curtis, Cooley Justice speaking When Wardens, 299, 12 How. laid down this principle: of nature to de as is such particular subject rule, uniform throughout mand a single operating equally exclusive; but when is of States, United power Congress different' is of such nature as to systems the subject require from local and drawn knowledge experience, of regulation, of state to local be the conformed wants, subject legis may 12 How. 319, has not lation Congress long legislated. laid become fully there down has 320. principle recog nized-and established our jurisprudence. Transportation Nevada, v. v. 107 U. S. Crandall Parkersburg, 691, 704; Co. 691, Kimball, 6 Wall. v. 102 U. S. 701. 35, 42; Country Mobile Con the nature Wherever,-from subject, States, is several exclusive, commerce regulate gress if no there has' been cannot even course, legislation legislate, in another been stated* as the has or, proposition Congress; exclusive, is where the form, regulate indicates failure to make regulations express be its will that the shall left free restrictions subject by regulation impositions; of local concern matters except only, repugnant District, to such freedom.” Robbins v. Shelby Taxing U. S. theory intoxicating liquors bringing in the another,

one State into them there the selling'of are re introduced, been packages subjects rule, national and uniform regulated by quiring therefore the exclusive and wholly power Congress,, IOWA, v. Gray, Harlan, Brown, JJ. free from state was not broached legislation, member by any of the court before the cases v. Bowman & Chicago North western 125 U. S. Railway, Leisy Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. Bowman’s case Chief

In Justice Waite two other just ices dissented, and case three Leisy’s dissented ; justices and the reasons for and the decisions were stated at against delivered in those It length opinions cases. will sufficient, for our to state there present .purpose, points decided.

Each of those cases arose under statutes of the State of the sale and the regulating manufacture, transpor tation within the State. intoxicatingsliquors Bowman v. & Northwestern Chicago decided Railway, *15 this court March 19, involved the of a 1888, validity provision of those statutes, similar to the now (substantially provision us, as construed the court of im the highest State,) railroad or posing other common a-penalty upon any company or carrier, of or other any either, agent any person, should within the or State, knowingly bring knowingly trans-. or between or from one convey to another port points place within State, the for any person other corporation, any without first obtained a certificate, intoxicating liquors, having : from the auditor the of to which it was county consigned, within which it was to be conveyed place; certify was authorized the laws of ing Iowa consignee sell of this court, conside liquors. majority “ statute, of ration the whole the frankly recognized has been the State of provision question adopted by for the of commerce between expressly purpose regulating its citizens and other but as those subservient the the health and morals of its general design protecting and the State, and order of the the people peace' good against and moral from the manu evils unrestricted physical resulting and facture sale within the State of intoxicating liquors.” S. the held to 475, U. 476. Nevertheless, provision as a railroad void, unconstitutional and company applied State from another the transporting intoxicating liquors TERM, Harlan, Brown, Gray, JJ. “ that the State without the cannot, ground commerce consent of express implied, regulate Congress, and those other States of the Union between its people end, its however desirable such a in order to effect regulation S. 493. The court took be.” 125 U. to distin pains might from Peirce v. New above Hampshire, cited, case guish reserved distinctly expression opinion upon the State had the regulate pro whether question unbroken hibit the sale liquor by importer pack after it had been State. 125 U. S. ages brought 479, 499, 500. later, Hardin,

But v. two Leisy years and it was decided that decision; distinctly presented statutes sale of Iowa, prohibiting provision than for otherwise medi pharmaceutical, intoxicating liquors, chemical or sacramental under a cinal, purposes, druggist’s State, was, court as license from county applied and in unbroken sale by importer, original packages, manufactured in and unopened, brought unconstitutional and another as void, repugnant the Constitution to grant interstate commerce. The majority regulate its delivered Chief Justice, opinion, present April treated Peirce New overruled; Hampshire own conclusions as follows: error stated plaintiffs are not no Illinois, are citizens of have per pharmacists, but into Iowa beer, sell mit, they' import original as described. Under our decision in Bowman v. packages, *16 had Northwestern & Chicago Railway, they right beer into that and in the which we view import 'to which act have sell it, expressed they by in common alone would mass become mingled prop time, State. to that we hold within Up point perty ..the in so, the absence of to do that, Congressional permission other State had no interfere or seizure, by or in sale action, importation by foreign prohibition And in non-resident it was said importer.” “ far as responsibility upon regulation Congress, RHODES v. IOWA. 431 Harlan, Gray, Brown, JJ. commerce is concerned, of interstate remove the restriction in with the State articles of trade dealing imported have not been limits, its with the common mingled mass if in therein, the end to be secured property judgment action.” 135 123, U. S. justifies 124. requires Thereupon immediately ex- interposed, manifested its plicit unequivocally that no legislation purpose silence on its should rise that it part give presumption intended that either the transportation intoxicating liquors into one State or their sale in another, the latter in even the had been packages should be brought, the reach of free, beyond police State. On 14, 1890, Wilson, Mr. May to the reported which, Senate, from the Committee on the Judiciary, bill, as amended his motion on 29, was May passed August all 1890, fermented, distilled or enacting other intoxi State or eating liquors liquids, Terri transported therein for tory, use, remaining oi sale consumption, therein, shall arrival in such State or storage upon, Territory and effect of the laws of operation such State enacted the exercise of its Territory tc police powers,, same extent and the same manner as sucl though had been liquids such State or produced Terri and shall not be tory, therefrom reason of exempt beinc introduced therein or otherwise.” original Con packages 51st Record, 1st gressional sess. 5, 4642; Congress, pt. p. pt act of 5430; 8, 1890, c. 26 Stat. p. August Soon after the of this act of passage Congress, questioi of its and effect constitutionality before this cour brought wa§ in Rahrer’s case, U. S. 545. whicl Intoxicating liquors, owner; had been sent, before the of this their act, passage in Missouri to Rahrer Kansas to be sold him on thei account, were, after the of the act, sold him ii passage Kansas as the and in the' agent consignors origina court This held that packages. Rahrer wa unanimously liable to be sale under prosecuted statutes of th State of Kansas, in 1889, which made no distinctioi parsed between and domestic imported liquors. *17 TERM, 1897.

432 Harlan, Brown, Opinion: Gray, Dissenting JJ.

n Justice, delivering majority Chief has now declared spoken, said: Congress “ arrival shall, upon liquids imported liquors articles of a similar domestic' fall within category to Constitution S. 560. nature.” U. grant 140 commerce, said to regulate Congress power “ to the no furnishes position Justice, support Chief exercise' of the discretion re could not, did common interests not in it, concluding posed in ardent enact in the traffic entire freedom spirits, require In has not at the law doing, Congress question. or to commerce, power regulate to delegate tempted to the or to States, reserved power' grant exercise any laws.” not adopt possessed by “ if chooses to No reason is why, provide perceived commerce shall of interstate that certain subjects designated them that character a rule which divests governed time than would be the otherwise an earlier at period not within its to do so.” U. S. it is case, competency to the State did not use terms of permission 562. Congress removed an enforce but act; impediment simply the state laws ment of imported respect packages of a created the absence condition, their specific original It no utterance on- part. imparted to fall then but allowed not imported property possessed, “This is within the local once jurisdiction.”- upon unauthorized exercise of a law enacted in the not the case but confided to of a law of a Congress, power exclusively but it was for the State' pass, competent a certain situation could not articles occupying operate upon That act in terms until the of the act of passage Congress. we no obstacle, removed the ground perceive adequate of the state law was that a reenactment required adjudging which it had it could have the effect imported attached, domestic Jurisdiction;, property. always effect of but because of the law of virtue tifie Congress, could" the latter where jurisdiction property attach.” 140 U. S. v. IOWA. Brown, Harlan, Gray, JJ. *18 is that of that decision the effect police power necessary of the the includes regulation transportation, each State

of within its of all territory, sale, intoxicating liquors well as the the the Constitution affected by far as by grant so except over com- the foreign Congress n its far as manifests intention that, ; Congress merce commerce do not of such interests require the exemp- that the of the State, this the exercise police power tion from unrestricted. in this court heretofore delivered the upon The opinions do of 1890, act of not the although effect of “ that the arrival con State,” decide, imply, clearly act, is the an arrival within intended the by templated State. In limits and Rahrer's territorial jurisdiction in the said Justice, the Chief case, passages already quoted, “ has that act declared this imported liquors fall within the of domes arrival in a shall, category upon “ has allowed a nature,” tic articles of similar imported within the local fall at arrival once jurisdic upon property tion.” S. 564. The natural these 140 U. 560, meaning arrival within is that expressions liquors, upon imported at once to its of the become jurisdiction. jurisdiction S. An d 165 U. Donald, Scott phrase “was, used in court opinion majority arrival in State,” and, a the dissenting opinion, “upon their either State,” arrival without suggestion were two exactly synonymous, phrases ” “ “ an arrival within the was not State.” U. S. 102. bar case at mean- directly presents “ State,” words arrival in as used Con- ing act. gress

Chief Justice when Marshall, discussing general meaning “‘To arrive,” words and “to said: arrive’ “arrival” is a when to an verb, neuter which, applied object moving, fact of to’ or from ‘coming place place, designates ’ ‘ or of reach- another, one coming reaching place towards it. If ing place place travelling, moving VOL. CLXX—28 TERM, 1897.

43é Harlan, Brown, Gray, JJ. then the reaches that has object designated, place arrived at it. A who is to Richmond has coming person arrived when he But is not necessary enters city. the correctness of this the travel- term, the place ler arrives should be his ultimate or the end of destination, Norfolk, A from Richmond to his journey. person going when he reaches that Roads, arrives within water, Hampton if he the direct he arrives or, course, diverges place; that town. This I is, believe, when he enters Petersburg, the term.” The Patriot, Brock. universal understanding 407, 411, Marshall is the universal declared, as Chief Justice

If, that it of the term fact “com- understanding designates ” ” to or towards ing reaching travelling moving *19 at which and does not that the traveller it, require place destination, be his ultimate arrives should consequently in a or town when that that a traveller he enters city arrives “ it would that or seem follow arrival in the town, city ” when the or the in State is merchandise complete person enters the State. n “word m arrival,” That such is the as used the meaning in to us to be act of now: confirmed question, appears the whole obvious act. scope purpose that The act declares enacts all intoxicating liquors, “ into State or or any Territory, remaining transported therein for sale or shall use, therein, consumption, storage in State or be to the arrival such Territory” subject in its of its laws enacted the exercise of effect and operation manner to the same extent and in the same police powers, in “and shall not be it, had been produced as though in therein reason of introduced therefrom by being exempt or otherwise.” packages original “ trans- all includes terms, act, intoxicating liquors The therein for or into State Territory, remaining or ported If it assumed or therein.” be sale use, consumption, storage “ therein,” or sale for words, use, storage consumption, “ or clause, remaining to the next are not preceding restricted “ trans- clause, back to the' earlier but also extend therein,” Harlan, Gray, Brown, JJ. or still the effect of into State Territory,” ported is to cover all words or intoxicating transported liquors, State that any possible except remaining purpose, the State to another State transported through being ” “ All such arrival State are country. liquors enacted and effect of laws subject operation “in exercise of its powers,” police same and in manner as if extent' the same liquors been within its limits. And produced expressly provided from the exercise not be shall intoxicating exempt “ reason intro- of the State, by being powers police or otherwise.” phrases therein duced original packages State,” State,” into any “transported “upon used have been as therein,” would introduced seem substantially equivalent. destina- at a no mention of arrival specific act makes as Its whole the State. object, appears upon

tion which led its well from the circumstances face, as its enactment, to define when particular voyage is not but to end; an assure shall considered transit exercise its territorial full jurisdiction, throughout over the intoxicating liquors. police powers indicate an intention on we the act to find' And nothing the mere fact intoxicating the part have not into the State, a common carrier brought by liquors, been in'the de- reached their ultimate destination them, after shall coming livered to exempt consignee, *20 exercise from the of State, limits of the within the territorial its police powers. Iowa, under which Rhodes the State of the statute of By “ if railway any company, company,

was prosecuted, express of com- in the any or express or any employ agent person in the or or carrier, of common any any person employ pany, if shall or other carrier, common any person transport to another within or from one or between place convey points or or for other corporation, any this person persons furnished with without first been having intoxicating liquors, auditor of from and under seal the county a certificate ' OCTOBER TERM, 1897. n Dissenting Opinion: Harlan, Gray, Brown, JJ. to which said 'is to he county or liquor is con- transported for or within which it is to be

signed transportation, conveyed place place, certifying consignee person whom said delivered, liquor transported, conveyed is authorized to sell such in such intoxicating liquors county,” company, shall, con- agent person offending be fined viction, each .and $100 offence; sum. “ the herein defined shall offence be held to and complete shall be 'held to have "been committed in any county or to which-said are trans- through intoxicating liquors or in which same is unloaded for ported, transportation, or in said are -which or. conveyed place place But it is delivered.” defendant show provided may n hereunder, as a defence evidence preponderance character and circumstances of the and its contents shipment him.” were unknown to McClain’s Code of Iowa, § that, And it held bv the was Court of the State Supreme order' to. the conviction of Rhodes, it must support appear the act that, of, when he knew that complained doing box contained intoxicating liquor.

. facts, as The material and record, stated appearing in the Court of IoWa, Supreme reported were as follows: Iowa, Rhodes has -been' intoxicating- liquor, adjudged from one to another transporting guilty conveying

n the State violation the statute of Iowa,- contained was in a wooden (cid:127)State, whiskey, jug hidden in. a cubic foot marked size, IT.,” box “W. represented about delivered at Dallas in the to contain State of Illi groceries, business at that nois,, place, by company doing Chicago, Quincy Railway Company, Burlington consigned William Hown at one State of Iowa-; Brighton under a com carried, bill, way railway through over its road to the State Iowa, pany Burlington there Rail transferred and Western Burlington, within' State of whose road was way Company, wholly and was carried Upon' company Brighton. arrival at it was delivered the trainmen Brighton, *21 v. Harlan, Brown, Gray, JJ. and immediately of this company’s depot; platform Rhodes, the station Brighton, agent afterwards company’s his carried the the directions of with employer, complying room of the into the depot box from the freight platform a seized constable on the same was where, day, building, then held warrant, pay on a search company being and for ment of consignee. the unpaid freight delivery for the nor the held a trans Rhodes Neither company permit certificate sale intoxicating liquors, portation that was authorized sell auditor county consignee such liquors. arrival of the box mail that before the testified

Rhodes box from Dallas for Will told him was for a carrier he looking “ H.,” be marked W. Hown, iam and said was likely the mail car that he told would contain alcohol whiskey; rier had not received a box of he description; he this the next and that box arrived day; supposed, perhaps, him would come. The Su box the mail carrier told that this Court of Iowa was of testimony clearly preme that the box contained Rhodes knew intoxicating showed that of fact is re and its conclusion upon question liquors; 151 U. S. 658; this court. Dower v. Richards, viewable by 168 U. York, Turner New S. 188; 165 U. S. v. Hart, Egan 90, mov- Rhodes, of that

Nor does the conclusion house, only the box from the freight ing depot platform the box from one off, a few feet or conveyed transported statute to another within the meaning law which this court is au- present any question construed, statute, far thus review, thorized except and laws him of a under Constitution may deprive United States. rail brought liquor intoxicating of Illinois bill from Dallas under through way Iowa. It was car- in the State of to Burlington Brighton Com- Railway ried .‘the Quincy Burlington Chicago, from Illinois into road ran Burlington, (whose Iowa) pany Rail- Western and was there delivered to Burlington TERM, 189?. Syllabus. *22 road was (whose wholly State of way and was car- Iowa) ried and was there delivered by company Brighton, by its servants of its station. platform freight Taking into that so consideration much of the as was transportation an interstate railroad been accom- performed company and that the remainder of the plished, transportation Iowa, an Iowa within the State of corporation wholly had been so far as to land the completed intoxicating liquor the soil of we are of that there had been “ an in such so as to State,” liquor of the exercise State of Iowa, the- police 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 Argued No. 514. March 9, Decided previous adjudications is It settled this court: respective plenary power (1) regulate That the States have the sale liquors intoxicating borders, scope within their and the depend solely regulations judgment extent on the of the States, provided lawmaking 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 do not against rights discrimination residents citizens of other Union; States (2) right 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, state contrary say, goods notwithstanding; that is to