State v. Bengsch
Decision Date | 12 November 1902 |
Citation | 170 Mo. 81,70 S.W. 710 |
Parties | STATE v. BENGSCH. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Act April 17, 1901, § 4, taxing the manufacture and sale of liquor, does not apply to liquors manufactured for export, or before the enactment of the statute. An information charged that accused, a dramshop keeper, unlawfully and knowingly received into his dramshop one barrel containing distilled liquor, commonly known as "whisky," which barrel did not have affixed thereto license-tax stamps, and that accused sold one gallon of distilled liquor, commonly known as "whisky," drawn from a barrel to which license stamps were not attached. Held that, as the information did not show that the whisky received and sold was within the terms of the act, it was insufficient.
2. The title of Act April 17, 1901, was, "An act to provide for a state license tax on distilled liquors, including whisky," etc., "and distilled spirits of all kinds, wines and all kinds of vinous liquors; to create the office of special license commissioner, and to provide for the appointment thereof by the governor." The act imposed a property tax on distilled liquors manufactured in the state, or brought into the state for sale therein, required vendors of liquors to take out a license, and, by construction, exempted pure alcohol, domestic wines, and liquors manufactured for export, from taxation. Held, that the title to the act was not a violation of Const. art. 4, § 28, requiring that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.
3. Act April 17, 1901, was entitled "An act to provide for a state license tax on distilled liquors, including whisky," etc. Section 4 provided that "there shall be paid for the right and privilege to manufacture for sale in this state, distilled liquors," etc., "and for the right or privilege to sell such distilled or vinous liquors or products, brought or shipped into this state for sale herein, a special license tax of 10 cents for every gallon," etc. Section 25 providing that, "there being a deficiency in the revenue of the state," an emergency existed, which warranted the act's taking effect from its passage. The stamps issued pursuant to the act, and the construction given to it by the governor and attorney general, indicated that it was intended as a revenue measure. Section 24 of the act preserved in force Rev. St. 1899, c. 22, § 3015, giving permission to wine growers in the state to sell their own wine on their own premises. Held, that as the act did not apply to liquors manufactured for export, nor to domestic wines or pure alcohol, and as it was essentially a revenue measure, it violated Const. art. 10, § 3, declaring that taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the levying authority.
4. Section 25, constituting the emergency section, was sufficient in itself to stamp the measure as one for revenue merely.
5. So far as liquors manufactured for sale in the state, and liquors shipped into the state for sale therein, were concerned, the act was not bad for want of uniformity; each class of liquors being taxed the same amount.
6. The act, being framed and enacted as an entirety, so that it presumably would not have received the legislative sanction but for the fact that it was intended to operate as a whole, was void in toto.
7. The act, in view of its exemptions, was also invalid as infringing Const. art. 10, § 4, which commands that all property subject to taxes shall be taxed in proportion to its value.
8. Const. art. 10, § 6, specifically describes what property shall be exempt from taxation, and section 7 declares that all laws exempting property other than that enumerated shall be void. Held, that the act, in view of its exemptions, was void under these provisions.
9. Where a dramshop keeper is prosecuted for selling liquor on which a tax has not been paid, he may assail the statute imposing the license as unconstitutional in respect to manufacturers; the provisions of the act being so related as to avoid it as an entirety.
10. Under the act of congress of August 8, 1890, known as the "Wilson Law," which provides that intoxicating liquors transported into any state or territory, and remaining there for use, sale, or storage, shall, on arrival, be subject to the operation and effect of local laws enacted in the exercise of the state's police powers, the question whether the act of April 17, 1901, imposing a tax on liquors imported for sale into the state, violates Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10, prohibiting any state from laying imposts or duties on imports, or section 8, giving congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, cannot arise.
11. Act April 17, 1901, imposes a tax on liquor manufactured for sale within the state, but does not impose a tax on its manufacture for export. Held, that the act violates Const. U. S. Amend. 14, guarantying to each citizen of the United States and of each particular state the equal protection of the laws.
In banc. Appeal from circuit court, Bates county; W. W. Graves, Judge.
Paul Bengsch was prosecuted for selling whisky on which he had not paid a tax. From a judgment of acquittal, entered on sustaining a motion to quash the information, the state appeals. Affirmed.
The following is a copy of the act referred to in the opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...Ct. 1383, 32 L. Ed. 311; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289, 14 Sup. Ct. 829, 38 L. Ed. 719; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo., loc. cit. 109, 70 S. W. 710; City v. Ernst, 95 Mo. 360, 8 S. W. 558; City v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145; City v. Adams, 90 Mo. App. 35; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375, ......
-
Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck
...236, 60 L. Ed. 493, L. R. A. 1917D, 414, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. loc. cit. 279, 23 L. Ed. 347; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 81, 70 S. W. 710; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. loc. cit. 82, 20 Sup. Ct. 747, 44 L. Ed. 969; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. loc. cit. 149,......
-
State v. Roach
...loc. cit. 294, 158 S. W. 640, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955; State v. Distilling Co., 236 Mo. loc. cit. 260, 139 S. W. 453; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. loc. cit. 105, 70 S. W. 710; State ex rel. v. Vandiver, 222 Mo. 206, 121 S. W. 45; State v. Cantwell, 179 Mo. loc. cit. 260, 78 S. W. 572. In the c......
-
State v. Vandiver
...v. Murphy, 119 Mo. 163, 24 S. W. 774; State v. Great Western Coffee Co., 171 Mo. 634, 71 S. W. 1011, 94 Am. St. Rep. 802; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 81, 70 S. W. 710; State ex rel. v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 S. W. 1054, 34 S. W. 1102; City of St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600, 31 S. W. 1045; ......