Pure Oil Co v. State of Minnesota

• Decision Date: 09 December 1918
• Docket Number: No. 74,74
• Citation: 63 L.Ed. 180,39 S.Ct. 35,248 U.S. 158
• Parties: PURE OIL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

248 U.S. 158

39 S.Ct. 35

63 L.Ed. 180

PURE OIL CO.

v STATE OF MINNESOTA.

No. 74.

Argued Nov. 21 and 22, 1918.

Decided Dec. 9, 1918.

Messrs. Nathan H. Chase and William A. Lancaster, both of Minneapolis, Minn., and Clifford Thorne, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.

Egbert S. Oakley and Lyndon A. Smith, both of St. Paul, Minn., for the State of Minnesota.

Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case the state of Minnesota sued the plaintiff in error, an extensive dealer in oils, to recover fees, which were charged for the inspection of oils and gasoline, between February 1, 1913, and April 25, 1915. The judgment of the state Supreme Court (134 Minn. 101, 158 N. W. 723) affirming that of the trial court in favor of the state, is before us for review on writ of error.

The inspection involved was provided for by chapter 502 of the General Laws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1909, the title of which is:

'An act relating to the inspection of pertroleum products, the appointment of chief inspector of oils and deputy inspectors, manner of inspection, establishing fees for inspection and salaries of inspectors, prohibiting the sale of adulterated oils, and providing penalties for violation thereof'

—and the title of the chapter in which the original act is embodied in the General Statutes of the State is 'Inspection of Oils' (General Statutes of Minnesota 1913, c. 20).

Section 3622 provides that no person shall sell or offer for sale in the state illuminating oil which has not been inspected as provided for by the act, or which will ignite at a temperature below 120x Fahrenheit. A method is prescribed for making this 'fire test' and for determining the gravity of such oils, and the results must be stenciled on each container of oil.

Section 3625 deals with gasoline, and requires that it shall be subject to the same inspection and control as is prescribed for illuminating oils, 'except that the inspectors are not required to test it other than to ascertain its gravity.'

All containers of gasoline must be labeled conspicuously with the word 'Gasoline,' the gravity must be stenciled thereon, and it is made unlawful to sell or offer it for sale until inspected and approved. Provision is also made (section 3626) for the inspection of gasoline 'receptacles' to keep them 'free from water and all other foreign substances' and the sale of 'adulterated' gasoline is prohibited (section 3627). Obviously this is, in form, a not unusual type of inspection law.

The findings of fact by the trial court include the following:

During the period under discussion the state inspected 9,914 barrels of oil and 81,998 barrels of gasoline owned by the plaintiff in error, all of which were brought into Minnesota from other states by common carriers in tank cars, which were held at the place of business of the plaintiff in error until inspected, and all were unloaded from the cars in which they arrived and were held for general sale and distribution. And this in terms:

'That the testing of gasoline in the manner provided by the statute * * * indicates to the public the degree of safety of such gasoline, and has a fair relation to the quality and value thereof. That such inspection protects the community, as applied to sales of gasoline in Minnesota, from frauds and impositions, and advises, informs, and warns the public of the volatile character of said gasoline and the relative degree of care to be exercised in handling, storing, and using the same.'

On the case thus stated it is claimed that the Supreme Court of Minnesota erred in refusing to hold:

First, that the inspection fees imposed were so excessive in amount as to render the act a revenue rather than an inspection measure and that as such it offends against section 8, article 1, of the federal Constitution, as an attempt by the state to regulate interstate commerce; and

Second, that to the extent that the act applies to gasoline it is not a valid exercise of the police powers of the state, because it does not serve to protect or safeguard the health, morals or convenience of the public, and therefore offends against the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, by depriving the plaintiff in error of its property without due process of law to the extent of the fees which it in terms exacts.

The principles of law applicable to the decision of the case thus before us are few, and they are perfectly settled by the decisions of this court.

In the exercise of its police power a state may enact inspection laws, which are valid if they tend in a direct and substantial manner to promote the public safety and welfare or to protect the public from frauds and imposition when dealing in articles of general use, as to which Congress has not made any conflicting regulation, and a fee reasonably sufficient to pay the cost of such inspection may constitutionally be charged, even though the property may be moving in interstate commerce when inspected. Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 357, 358, 361, 18 Sup. Ct. 862, 43 L. Ed. 191; New Mexico v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38, 27 Sup. Ct. 1, 51 L. Ed. 78; Asbell v. State of Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 28 Sup. Ct. 485, 52 L. Ed. 778, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 504, 24 L. Ed. 1115; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 525, 32 Sup. Ct. 715, 56 L. Ed. 1182.

Specifically, state laws providing for the inspection of oils and gasoline have several times been recognized as valid by this court. Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. Ed. 1115; Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380, 32 Sup. Ct. 152, 56 L. Ed. 240; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U. S. 159, 29 Sup. Ct. 270, 53 L. Ed. 453.

But, if such inspection charge should be obviously...