Central Lumber Company v. State of South Dakota

• Decision Date: 02 December 1912
• Docket Number: No. 51,51
• Citation: 57 L.Ed. 164,226 U.S. 157,33 S.Ct. 66
• Parties: CENTRAL LUMBER COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

226 U.S. 157

33 S.Ct. 66

57 L.Ed. 164

CENTRAL LUMBER COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

No. 51.

Argued November 13 and 14, 1912.

Decided December 2, 1912.

[Syllabus from pages 157-159 intentionally omitted] Messrs. David F. Simpson, L. L. Brown, William A. Lancaster, and Milton D. Purdy for plaintiff in error.

The court declined to hear Mr. Royal C. Johnson, Attorney General of South Dakota, and Messrs. Samuel W. Clark and James M. Brown for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was found guilty of unfair discrimination under Session Laws of South Dakota for 1907, chap. 131, and was sentenced to a fine of $200 and costs. It objected in due form that the statute was contrary to the 14th Amendment, but on appeal the judgment of the trial court was sustained. 24 S. D. 136, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 804, 123 N. W. 504. By the statute anyone 'engaged in the production, manufacture, or distribution of any commodity in general use, that intentionally, for the purpose of destroying the competition of any regular established dealer in such commodity, or to prevent the competition of any person who in good faith intends and attempts to become such dealer, shall discriminate between different sections, communities, or cities of this state, by selling such commodity at a lower rate in one section . . . than such person . . . charges for such commodity in another section, . . . after equalizing the distance from the point of production,' etc., shall be guilty of the crime and liable to the fine.

The subject-matter, like the rest of the criminal law, is under the control of the legislature of South Dakota, by virtue of its general powers, unless the statute conflicts, as alleged, with the Constitution of the United States. The grounds on which it is said to do so are that it denies the equal protection of the laws, because it affects the conduct of only a particular class,—those selling goods in two places in the state,—and is intended for the protection of only a particular class,—regular established dealers; and also because it unreasonably limits the liberty of people to make such bargains as they like.

On the first of these points it is said that an indefensible classification may be disguised in the form of a description of the acts constituting the offense, and it is urged that to punish selling goods in one place lower than at another in effect is to select the class of dealers that have two places of business for a special liability, and in real fact is a blow aimed at those who have several lumber yards along a line of railroad, in the interest of independent dealers. All competition, it is added, imports an attempt to destroy or prevent the competition of rivals, and there is no difference in principle between the prohibited act and the ordinary efforts of traders at a single place. The premises may be conceded without accepting the conclusion that this is an unconstitutional discrimination. If the legislature shares the now prevailing belief as to what is public policy, and finds that a particular instrument of trade war is being used against that policy in certain cases, it may direct its law against what it deems the evil as it actually exists without covering the whole field of possible abuses, and it may do so none the less that the forbidden act does not differ in kind from those that are allowed. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 81, 55 L. ed. 369, 378, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205, 32 L. ed. 107, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1161.

That is not the arbitrary selection that is condemned in such cases as Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 19 Ann. Cas. 1247. The 14th Amendment does not prohibit legislation special in character. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 294, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1043, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. It does not prohibit a state from carrying out a policy that cannot be pronounced purely...