Under the Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, a state
may impose a license for regulating the sale of liquor in original
packages brought from foreign countries, as well as that brought
from other states.
Where a statute refers to "all" liquors transported into a state
or territory, the point of origin is immaterial, and the law
applies to liquors alike from other states and from foreign
countries.
The intent of Congress in enacting the Wilson Act was to give
the several states power to deal with all liquors coming from
outside to within their respective limits, and this purpose would
be defeated if the act were construed so as not to include liquors
from foreign countries as well as from other states.
An act of Congress, such as the Wilson Act, will not be so
construed as to confer upon foreign producers of an article a right
specifically denied to domestic producers of that article.
130 La. 1090 affirmed.
Page 227 U. S. 109
The facts, which involve the construction of the Wilson Act, are
stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion, by direction of the Court, by MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE:
DeBary & Company seek the reversal of a judgment for the
amount of a license tax (Act No. 176 of 1908, Session Acts of that
year, p. 236) for engaging "in the business of disposing of
alcoholic liquors in less quantities than five gallons." It was
conceded below that the business for which the license was exacted
consisted only in the sale in the original packages of foreign wine
or liquor, some of which was imported through the port of New York
and some through the port of New Orleans, a portion of that which
was brought into the port of New York having been stored and
subsequently shipped to New Orleans. The court below held, first,
that imposing the license was an exertion by the state not only of
its revenue powers, but of its police authority, brought into play
for the purpose of regulating the sale of liquor. In consequence of
the provisions of the Act of Congress known as the Wilson Act,
August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, c. 728, and the decisions of this
Court interpreting and applying the same, it was therefore held
that the sale of imported liquor in the original packages was
subject to state regulation, and hence the license was valid;
second, that even if the Wilson Act did not concern liquor imported
from a foreign country, nevertheless the license was valid
because
Page 227 U. S. 110
some of the liquor sold had been shipped to Louisiana from the
State of New York after its importation from a foreign country.
Without considering the second proposition, we think the
construction given to the Wilson Act, upon which the first
proposition rests, was so obviously the result of the text of that
act as interpreted by the decisions of this Court as to leave no
room for controversy.
Pabst Brewing Company v. Crenshaw,
198 U. S. 17;
American Express Company v. Iowa, 196 U.
S. 133;
Vance v. Vandercook Co., 170 U.
S. 438;
Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.
S. 412;
In re Rahrer, 140 U.
S. 545. It is true that the controversies which were
passed upon in the cited cases concerned not liquors imported into
the United States from foreign countries, but only liquors which
had been brought in from one state to another. But this fact cannot
be held to distinguish this case from the previous decisions
without giving effect to a distinction without a difference. To
hold that liquors brought into a state from a foreign country do
not become subject to the state police power until sold in the
original packages would certainly conflict with the command of the
statute that "all" liquors
"transported into any state or territory, or remaining therein
for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon arrival
in such state or territory, be subject to the operation and effect
of the laws of such state or territory . . . as though such liquids
or liquors had been produced in such state or territory, and shall
not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in
original packages or otherwise."
The word "all" causes a consideration of the point of origin of
the liquors transported to be wholly negligible, and this
irresistible conclusion as to the meaning of the text is rendered,
if possible, clearer by a consideration of the intent of Congress
in enacting the Wilson Law. In reason, it is certain that the
purpose which led to the enactment of the law was to give the
several
Page 227 U. S. 111
states power to deal with all liquors coming from outside their
limits upon arrival and before sale, thus rendering the state
police authority more complete and efficacious on the subject -- a
purpose which would be plainly set at naught by exempting liquors
brought into a state from a foreign country from the operation of
the statute. Indeed, to adopt the construction urged would not only
give rise to the contradictions which the analysis of the
contentions thus make plain, but would compel us to say that
Congress intended by the Wilson Law to confer upon foreign
producers of liquor a right which was specifically denied to liquor
of domestic production.
Affirmed.