Tiernan v. Rinker
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Parties | TIERNAN v. RINKER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.
A statute of Texas, entitled 'An Act regulating taxation,' approved June 3, 1873, enacts as follows:——
'.
'.
In pursuance of the authority conferred by this statute, the county court of Galveston County, in March, 1876, levied a tax upon certain parties engaged in the occupations mentioned in the third section, equal to one-half the tax levied by the State.
Barney Tiernan and a number of others, who were the petitioners in the court below, are engaged in the county of Galveston in the occupation of 'selling spirituous, vinous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors,' some of them in quantities less than one quart, and others in quantities of one quart and less than ten gallons; and the wines and beers which they sell are not of the manufacture of the State. By the present suit against Rinker, the treasurer of that county, they seek to enjoin the enforcement of the tax against them, on the alleged ground that the statute is invalid in that it discriminates in favor of wines and beer manufactured in the State against those which are manufactured elsewhere. The District Court of the State sustained a demurrer to their petition and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the decision. The petitioners thereupon sued out this writ of error.
Mr. A. H. Willie for the plaintiffs in error.
The statute subjects to a tax persons engaged in the pursuit of a given occupation, which is defined to be the selling of spirituous, vinous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors.
The first proviso embraces the plaintiffs in error, as their occupation is that of selling vinous and malt liquors which are not manufactured in Texas, and of spirituous and other intoxicating liquors. It discriminates in favor of wines or beer manufactured in Texas, and against those liquors if they are the product of other States or of foreign nations. The statute is, therefore, a regulation of commerce and is repugnant to the Constitution. Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U. S. 275.
The proviso is an essential part of the statute. Its office is to restrain the enacting clause and to except something which would otherwise have been within it, or, in some measure, to modify it. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1. The court can no more limit the legal effect of terms, because they are in a proviso, than it can qualify the terms of a private agreement, because they are in one part of the instrument instead of another. Dugan v. Bridge Company, 27 Pa. St. 310.
To strike out the proviso as unconstitutional, and yet sustain the statute as imposing the tax upon the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors indifferently, would defeat its obvious intention, which is to encourage the manufacture of Texas wines and beer. Where a statute is clearly made up of parts, sections, or provisions, one part will not be held good and another bad, unless the respective parts are independent of each other. State v. Commissioners of Perry County, 5 Ohio St. 507; Potter's Dwarris, 249. The constitutional parts can stand only when, after rejecting the others, the object and effect of the law are not destroyed. State v. Estabrook, 3 Nev. 180. The whole must fall, if, after rejecting the unconstitutional parts, the remainder is incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent. Cooley, Const. Lim. 178; Washington v. The State, 13 Ark. 763. Where the different provisions form inseparable parts of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
...v. Wisconsin, 154 U.S. 626, 14 S.Ct. 1206, 23 L.Ed. 1009 (1877); Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434, 25 L.Ed. 743 (1880); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123, 26 L.Ed. 103 (1880); Webber v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344, 26 L.Ed. 565 On some occasions, the Supreme Court has probed beyond the facial effect......
-
Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
...460, 6 S.Ct. 454, 29 L.Ed. 691 (1886). See also Scott v. Donald , 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632 (1897) ; Tiernan v. Rinker , 102 U.S. 123, 26 L.Ed. 103 (1880). Applying that rule, the Walling Court struck down a discriminatory state fee that applied only to those in the business o......
-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...nor discriminate against citizens engaged in selling them. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 ; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434 ; Tierman v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 . These cases relate to the taxing power of the state, and not to its police "Tierman v. Rinker is much relied on in the case at b......
-
Spain v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co.
...be presumed that the Legislature would have passed one without the other. Packer Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80, 24 L.Ed. 377; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123, 26 L.Ed. 103; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U.S. 447, 26 L.Ed. Railroad Co. v. Schutte, 103 U.S. 118, 142, 26 L.Ed. 327; McCullough v. Virginia,......
-
Missouri's Hangover: Wine-ing about Direct-to-Consumer Prohibition: Sarasota Wine Mkt., LLC v. Schmitt.
...while exempting the sale of local products as an "usurpation of power conferred by the constitution to Congress."); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123 (62) Rhodes, 170 U.S. at 415. (63) Id. (64) Leisy, 135 U.S. at 122. (65) Id. at 111. (66) Id. at 125-25. (67) See Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 4......
-
ENDING THE FEDERAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL REGULATIONS, TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE.
...209 (1824))). (148.) Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 460 (1886); see also Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 100 (1897); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123, 124 (149.) See, e.g., Bowman v. Chi. & Nw. Ry. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 479 (1888) (invalidating an Iowa law that restricted the production ......
-
Dude, Where's My Wine? the Potential Effect of Granholm v. Heald on Georgia Direct Wine Shipment Regulations
...116 U.S. 446, 454 (1886) (invalidating Michigan tax imposing taxes on imported liquor, but not local products); Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123, 127 (1880) (holding that Texas's tax exemption on local beer and wine, but not for foreign imported alcohol, unconstitutional against the Commerce......