Plumley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Citation | 39 L.Ed. 223,15 S.Ct. 154,155 U.S. 461 |
Decision Date | 10 December 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 406,406 |
Parties | PLUMLEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
R. M. Morse, A. H. Veeder, and Wm. J. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
A. E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Plumley, the plaintiff in error, was convicted in the muncipal court of Boston upon the charge of having sold in that city on the 6th day of October, 1891, in violation of the law of Massachusetts, a certain article, product, and compound known as 'oleomargarine,' made partly of fats, oils, and oleagious substances and compounds thereof, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream, but manufactured in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk and cream.
The prosecution was based upon a statute of that commonwealth approved March 10, 1891, and entitled 'An act to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of imitation butter.' By that statute it is provided as follows:
Acts & Resolves Mass. 1891, c. 58.
The defendant was found guilty of the offense charged. The court adjudged that he pay a fine of $100, and on default thereof stand committed in the common jail of Suffolk county until the fine was paid. Such default having occurred, a writ of commitment was issued, under which he was taken for the purpose of imprisoning him in jail until the fine was paid.
He sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts upon the ground that he was restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States.
In his petition for the writ the accused set forth, in substance, that at the time and place charged he offered for sale and sold one package containing 10 pounds of oleomargarine, manufactured from pure animal fats or substances, and designed to take the place of butter produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream. He also alleged that the oleomargarine in question was manufactured by a firm of which he was an agent, and the members of which were citizens and residents of Illinois, engaged at the city of Chicago in the business of manufacturing that article, and shipping it to various cities, towns, and places in Illinois and in other states, and there selling the same; and that all oleomargarine manufactured by that firm and by other leading manufacturers was a wholesome, nutritious, palatable article of food, in no way deleterious to the public health or welfare.
The petitioner claimed that the statute of Massachusetts was repugnant to the clause of the constitution providing that the congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states; to the clause declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; to the clause providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; to the clause declaring that private property shall not be taken for public purposes; and to the act of congress of August, 2, 1886 entitled 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine' (24 Stat. 209, c. 840; Supp. Rev. St. 505).
The case was heard before one of the justices of that court, and was reported to the full court on the petition and on the following facts and offer of proof:
'It is admitted that the article sold was sent by the manufacturers thereof in the state of Illinois to the petitioner, their agent in Massachusetts, and was sold by him in the original package, and that in respect to the article sold the importers and the petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the act of congress regulating the sale of oleomargarine, and it was marked and distinguished by all the marks, words, and stamps required of oleomargarine by the laws of this commonwealth.'
It was adjudged that the prisoner be remanded to the custody of the keeper of the common jail, to be therein confined, the opinion of that court being that the statute of Massachusetts was not in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, and, consequently, that the petitioner was not illegally restrained of his liberty. 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. 1127. The present writ of error brings up that judgment for review.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that congress, in the act of August 2, 1886, has legislated fully on the subject of oleomargarine. This may be true, so far as the purposes of that act are concerned. But there is no ground to suppose that congress intended in that enactment to interfere with the exercise by the states of any authority they could rightfully exercise over the sale within their respective limits of the article defined as 'oleomargarine.' The statute imposed certain special taxes upon manufactures of oleomargarine, as well as upon wholesale and retail dealers in that compound. And it is expressly declared (section 3) that sections 3232-3241, inclusive, and section 3243, of the Revised Statutes, title 'Internal Revenue,' 'are, so far as applicable, made to extend to and include and apply to the special taxes' so imposed, 'and to the persons upon whom they are imposed.' Section 3243 of the Revised Statutes is in these words: 'The payment of any tax imposed by the internal revenue laws for carrying on any trade or business shall not be held to exempt any person from any penalty or punishment provided by the laws of any state for carrying on the same within such state, or in any manner to authorize the commencement or continuance of such trade or business contrary to the laws of such state or in places prohibited by municipal law; nor shall the payment of any such tax be held to prohibit any state from placing a duty or tax on the same trade or business, for state or other purposes.' It is manifest that this section was incorporated into the act of August 2, 1886, to make it clear that congress had no purpose to restrict the power of the states over the subject of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within their respective limits. The taxes prescribed by that act were imposed for national purposes, and their imposition did not give authority to those who paid them to engage in the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in any state which lawfully forbade such manufacture or sale, or to disregard any regulations which a state might lawfully prescribe in reference to that article. License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 474; Pervear v. Com., Id. 475; U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41.
Nor was the act of congress relating to oleomargarine intended as a regulation of commerce among the states. Its provisions do not have special application to the transfer of oleomargarine from one state of the Union to another....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. E. Spriggs Co. v. Adolph Coors Co.
...L.Ed.2d 163), highway safety (California v. Zook, Supra, 336 U.S. 725, 69 S.Ct. 841, 93 L.Ed. 1005), labeling (Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461, 15 S.Ct. 154, 39 L.Ed. 233), and disposition of foodstuffs (Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315). These are but specif......
-
Miller v. Crawford
... ... 67, p. 67; New York, 1902, Session Laws, ... vol. ii. c. 528, p. 1249; Massachusetts, 1903, Acts, c. 415, ... p. 389; California, 1903, Stat. & Amend. to Codes, c. 100; ... Colorado, ... 356; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160; Lowell v ... Boston, 111 Mass. 454; Commonwealth v. Intox. Liquors, 115 ... Mass. 153; Commonwealth v. Bearse, 132 Mass. 542; People v ... West, ... Missouri, 156 U.S. 296; Railroad ... Co. v. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311; Plumley v ... Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, ... 183 U.S. 238; Crowley v ... ...
-
George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
...Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203, 6 L. ed. 71; Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 27 L. ed. 370, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 39 L. ed. 223, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 590, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154; Patapsco Guana Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 357, 358, 43 L.......
-
Marion Savage v. William Jones
...36, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681; Re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 559, 560, 35 L. ed. 572, 575, 576, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 473, 39 L. ed. 223, 227, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 590, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. 170 U. S. 438, 444, 445, 42 L. ed. 1100......
-
Meat Labeling and the Public's Right to Know: Important Lessons From Environmental Disclosure Laws
...Michigan law contained speciic provisions governing the 86. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996); Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461, 472 (1894); accord Hillsborough County Fla. v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715 (1985). 87. Medtronic, Inc., 518 U.S. at 485......
-
The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
...Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189;Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446; Bourjois Inc.v. Chapman, 301 U. S. 183.30 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461;Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S.497.31 Cf. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343.32 Clark Distilling Co. v. Western MarylandRy., 242 ......