Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw

• Decision Date: 09 February 1903
• Citation: 120 F. 144
• Parties: PABST BREWING CO. v. CRENSHAW et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

120 F. 144

PABST BREWING CO. v. CRENSHAW et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Saint Joseph Division.

February 9, 1903

Harkless O'Grady & Crysler and Francis C. Downey, for complainant.

Wm. M Williams and E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., for defendants.

This is a bill in equity to enjoin the defendants, G. Y. Crenshaw, as state beer inspector, and his assistant, from enforcing against the complainant, a corporation of the state of Wisconsin, the provisions of an act of the Legislature of the state of Missouri, entitled, 'An act creating the office of inspector of beer and malt liquors of the state, and providing for the inspection of beer and malt liquors manufactured and sold in this state, ' approved May 4 1899. Sess. Laws Mo. 1899, p. 228. The bill sets out the act the substantive provisions of which are that it creates the office of beer inspector, to be appointed by the Governor of the state, and defines his duties.

Section 3 provides that every person or corporation keeping a brewery for the manufacture of beer or malt products within the state shall cause the same to be inspected by said inspector. Section 4 requires that such malt liquor shall contain no other substances than pure hops, or pure extract of hops, or pure barley, malt, or wholesome yeast, or rice. Section 5, which it is conceded has special reference to the beer or malt liquors manufactured without the state, provides, in substance, that every person or corporation who shall receive for sale or offer for sale any beer or other malt liquors other than those manufactured in this state shall, upon receipt of same and before offering for sale, notify the inspector, who shall be furnished with a sworn affidavit, subscribed by an officer authorized to administer oaths, from the manufacturer thereof, or other reputable person having actual knowledge of the composition of said beer or other malt liquors, that no material other than pure hops or the extract of hops, or pure barley, malt, or wholesome yeast, or rice, was used in the manufacture of the same; 'upon receipt of said affidavit, the inspector shall inspect and label the packages containing said beer or malt liquors, for which services he shall receive like fees as those imposed upon the manufacturers of beer and malt liquors in this state. ' Section 6 provides for the keeping of books and record of fees collected, and expenditures incurred, to be reported to the Governor of the state. Section 7 makes it the duty of the inspector to cause to be inspected all beer or other malt liquors brewed, manufactured, or sold in this state, and, if found to come up to the requirements of the statute, he shall place upon the package containing such beer or malt liquor his label, certifying that the same has been inspected, and is made of wholesome ingredients. Section 8 fixes the inspection fees at one cent for each gallon contained in each package, and two cents for labeling each package, which fees are to be paid into the state treasury. The word 'package' as used in the act shall mean any kind of vessel, other than pint and quart bottles, in which any beer or malt liquor may be placed for sale, containing eight gallons or less; when said beer, etc., is placed in pint or quart bottles, a 'package' shall be construed to mean not to exceed 48 pint bottles or 24 quart bottles, which, when manufactured and so bottled, must, before sale, be placed in suitable cases containing said number and size of bottles, for inspection and stamping by said state inspector; and when placed in vessels containing more than eight gallons, the word 'package' shall mean each eight gallons or fractional part thereof so contained in said vessel. Section 9 provides that the expense of said office, including the salaries of the inspector and his deputies, shall be paid monthly out of the amount appropriated by law from the general revenue fund; and all fees received by the inspector under the provisions of the act shall, on or before the last day of each month, be paid into the state treasury and placed to the credit of the general revenue fund. Section 10 declares that any person who shall sell any beer or malt liquor within this state which has not been inspected according to the provisions of the act, or contained in packages which shall not have upon them the certificate of the state inspector, etc., shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not less than six months, and in addition thereto shall have his license or other authority, giving him the right to manufacture or sell said liquors in this state, revoked, and shall not again receive any such license or other authority for a period of two years. Section 12 provides that all prosecutions for violations and penalties under the provisions of the act shall be either by indictment or information in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 13 declares that all beer or other malt liquors manufactured in this state and exported outside of the state for sale shall be inspected as other liquors designated in this act, but said inspection shall be free of cost to the manufacturer.

The bill of complaint, in its substantive allegations, states that the complainant is a manufacturer, in the state of Wisconsin, of grades of beer and malt liquor, requiring special treatment; and that it ships into the state of Missouri, annually, not less than 15,000 barrels of beer and other malt liquors, of 30 gallons each, of the aggregate value of not less than $100,000; that it has a warehouse in the state of Missouri in which its beer is stored. About one-half shipped into the state is subsequently reshipped from its said warehouse and sold in other states. The bill states that a large number of persons are engaged in the manufacture of beer in the state of Missouri, a large quantity of which is for sale in the state and also for export therefrom; and that a very large quantity is also shipped into the state from other states and countries. It is charged that said act of the Legislature is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and is violative of the complainant's rights thereunder, and especially under the fourteenth amendment thereto. The bill then proceeds to set out, with considerable specification, the objections to the validity of the statute, which may be briefly stated as follows:

1. That the Act imposes upon the product of the importer into the state a greater exaction than upon the product of the manufacturer in the state, or is imposed upon the property of other persons in the state, and is, therefore, an unjust discrimination against the nonresident brewer; and is, therefore, in conflict with the fourteenth amendment and the interstate commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

2. That not less than 7,500 barrels, of 31 gallons each, of the value of $50,000, shipped into the state by the complainant, is intended for subsequent exportation to other states, and is sold and reshipped to other states in the original packages, although brought into the state and stored in complainant's warehouse; and that complainant is compelled to pay, and does pay, to the state, inspection fees upon that part of its product intended for other states, in violation of section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

3. That such inspection fees are not required to be paid on the beer manufactured in the state of Missouri and exported therefrom, while such fees are required on the beer manufactured outside of the state by complainant and shipped through Missouri into other states.

4. That while $12,000 is appropriated for the cost of inspection, and that as no part of this sum is paid by the manufacturers of beer in the state of Missouri upon their products exported for sale, an unjust proportion of these salaries is collected from the complainant.

5. That the act requiring the nonresident brewer to furnish an affidavit of the ingredients from which his beer is manufactured costs the complainant one thousand dollars annually, while the domestic manufacturers are not required to furnish such affidavits; and that when such affidavit is submitted it is of no force or effect, and does not take the place of an inspection. But that the act, nevertheless, requires in addition to such affidavit an inspection, which necessitates the breaking open of the packages in which the beer is contained, and that this will result in the destruction of at least one package of each shipment, as the beer in the bottle opened will become 'stale, flat and unprofitable.'

In one paragraph of the bill it is alleged, in terms, that a large per cent. of the beer shipped by the complainant is stored in this state, in the original packages, or bulk, temporarily, for distribution and sale outside of the state, without breaking the original packages; and that the defendants subject such to the demands of the state under said act to the inspection fees; that they have caused prosecutions to be instituted for violations of the act for refusals to pay such fees, and threaten further prosecutions, to the great annoyance of the complainant, attended with exposure to a forfeiture of its right to transact its business in the state; the particulars of which averment will more fully appear in the opinion of the court.

The defendants demur to the bill.

PHILIPS, District Judge (after stating the facts).

It is conceded to the complainant that the bill is not obnoxious to the objection that this is a proceeding against the state as such. It is directed against the defendants in their individual capacity, who, under color of their office as inspectors, are alleged to be...