State v. Parker Distilling Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtWoodson
Citation139 S.W. 453,237 Mo. 103,236 Mo. 219
Decision Date03 July 1911
PartiesSTATE v. PARKER DISTILLING CO.
139 S.W. 453
236 Mo. 219
237 Mo. 103
STATE
v.
PARKER DISTILLING CO.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
July 3, 1911.
Motion for Rule, July 15, 1911.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 48) — STATUTES — VALIDITY — PRESUMPTIONS.

The court must presume that a statute is constitutional, and the burden to show its invalidity is on the party asserting it.

2. LICENSES (§ 5) — POLICE POWER — TAXING LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.

The Legislature may not, under the guise of a police regulation, tax a legitimate business in a manner prohibited by the state or federal Constitutions.

3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 1) — REGULATION — LEGISLATIVE POWER.

As regards regulation, the liquor traffic is not a lawful business, except as authorized by express legislation.

4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 6) — REGULATION — LEGISLATIVE POWER.

The state, in the exercise of its police power, may regulate the liquor traffic and may impose a tax on the business of liquor dealers, wholesalers or retailers, and define such dealers.

5. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 44) — REGULATING BUSINESS — LICENSES.

The burdens imposed by Laws 1909, p. 654, licensing manufacturers of intoxicating liquors, and wholesale and retail dealers, and providing that the license shall be determined on the volume of the business, are license fees for the privilege of carrying on the business, and are not taxes within the taxing power, since taxation assumes the legality of the business for any one who may choose to pursue it, but imposes a burden for the public benefit on those engaging in it.

6. STATUTES (§ 109) — TITLE — SUFFICIENCY.

Where any matter contained in a statute is objected to as not referred to in the title, the objection is not well taken, if the clause or section to which objection is raised is germane to the subject treated of in the title.

7. STATUTES (§ 107) — PLURALITY OF SUBJECTS.

The title of Laws 1909, p. 654, entitled "An act to license manufacturers and rectifiers of intoxicating liquors, and wholesale and retail dealers in such liquors, except wines and spirits produced from grapes or fruits grown in the state * * * and except social, commercial or other clubs, druggists, pharmacists and licensed dramshop keepers, and to provide penalties for a violation thereof," mentions but one subject within Const. art. 4, § 28, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject.

8. STATUTES (§ 121) — TITLE OF ACT — SUFFICIENCY.

A provision in the body of such act that on every license rendered under the act there shall be levied a tax to be determined on the volume of the business is within the title as merely imposing license fees; and hence the act is not violative of Const. art. 4, § 28.

9. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 16) — TAXATION — UNIFORMITY.

Laws 1909, p. 654, licensing manufacturers of intoxicating liquors, and wholesale and retail dealers therein, and providing that on every license there shall be levied a tax for state purposes to be determined in a manner specified, does not impose a tax on occupations, persons, or property within Const. art. 10, §§ 3, 4, providing that taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects, and that all property shall be taxed in proportion to its value, but requires a license fee from those engaging in the liquor business for the privilege of so doing.

10. LICENSES (§ 1) — "LICENSE."

A license is a grant of special privilege to one or more persons, not enjoyed by citizens generally, or, at least, not enjoyed by a class of citizens to which the licensee belongs, and grants a permission to do something which, without a license, is not allowable (quoting 5 Words and Phrases, p. 4137).

11. LICENSES (§ 1) — STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION.

The court, in determining whether a statute imposes a tax or a license fee for the privilege of engaging in a business, is not bound by what the Legislature calls the imposition, but must determine the matter from a consideration of the statute.

12. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§§ 55, 99, 106) — REGULATION — LEGISLATIVE POWER.

The liquor business may only be conducted lawfully by securing a license in the manner authorized by the statute, constituting a police regulation, and the license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but the state may revoke the license at pleasure.

13. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 6) — REGULATION — LEGISLATIVE POWER.

The Legislature licensing the liquor traffic and permitting only those obtaining the license to engage in the business, may adopt such regulation of the business as it sees fit, and no one

[139 S.W. 454]

engaging in the business may complain of such regulations because excessive or inadequate.

14. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 16) — TAXES — STATUTES — VALIDITY.

Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a graduated tax, based on the kind and volume of the business transacted, is within the power of the Legislature, and the act is not violative of Const. art. 10, § 3, providing that taxes shall be uniform.

15. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 230) — EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS — CLASSIFICATION.

Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing licenses on manufacturers of, and wholesale and retail dealers in, intoxicating liquors, except social, commercial, or other clubs, druggists, pharmacists, and licensed dramshop keepers, is not invalid because of the exception, but the classification is a reasonable and proper one.

16. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 211) — EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS — CLASSIFICATION.

Where a statute makes a reasonable classification of persons and subjects to which it applies, and it is uniform in its application to the classes embraced within its provisions, the state and federal Constitutions are complied with.

17. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 230) — EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS — CLASSIFICATION.

Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license fee on manufacturers of, and wholesale and retail dealers in, intoxicating liquors, except wines and spirits produced from grapes or fruits grown in the state, is not invalid because of the exception, on the ground that it is not uniform in its application.

18. TAXATION (§ 40) — STATUTES — VALIDITY.

A statute which imposes a tax under the taxing power on persons, property, or any lawful business is invalid, where it is not uniform in its operation.

19. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§§ 230, 42) — PARTIAL INVALIDITY.

Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license on manufacturers of, and wholesale and retail dealers in, intoxicating liquors, except wines and spirits produced from grapes or fruits grown in the state, makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell any kind of intoxicating liquors, except wines and spirits produced from grapes or fruits grown in the state, without first obtaining a license, and the act is not discriminatory, in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, though a tax may not be exacted for the sale of wines and spirits when of foreign manufacture, if not exacted from their sale when of domestic manufacture; but one engaged in the manufacture or sale of other liquors may not complain of the burden on the ground of discrimination.

20. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 16) — LICENSES — STATUTES — VALIDITY — "TAX."

The burden imposed by Laws 1909, p. 654, on manufacturers of, and dealers in, intoxicating liquors, except wines and spirits produced from fruits grown in the state, is not a "tax" within Const. art. 10, §§ 6, 7, providing what property shall be exempt from taxation, and the statute is not invalid because exempting from its operation wines or spirits made from grapes or fruits grown in the state.

21. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 287) — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — STATUTES.

Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license on manufacturers of, and dealers in, intoxicating liquors, except wines and spirits produced from grapes or fruits grown in the state, does not deprive any one of his property without due process of law, in violation of Const. art. 2, § 30, and Const. U. S. Amend. 14.

22. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 251) — PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION — APPLICABILITY TO STATES.

Const. U. S. Amend. 5 has no reference to the laws of a state, but relates solely to the enactments of Congress.

23. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 206) — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS — STATUTES.

Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and Const. U. S. Amend. 14, forbidding any state from enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, does not guarantee the right to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors, and Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license on manufacturers of, and dealers in, intoxicating liquors, is not invalid.

24. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 287) — POLICE POWER — CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Const. U. S. Amend. 14, does not take from the state its police power to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens and to promote their health, morals, education, and good order, and it, standing alone, has no application to Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license on manufacturers of, and dealers in, intoxicating liquors, which is a mere police regulation.

25. COMMERCE (§ 77) — POWERS OF STATES — LEVYING IMPOSTS OR IMPORT DUTIES.

Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10, prohibiting any state from levying any imposts or duties refers only to imports from foreign countries, and not from one state into another, and it does not invalidate Laws 1909, p. 654, imposing a license on manufacturers of, and dealers in, intoxicating liquors.

26. COMMERCE (§ 14) — INTERSTATE COMMERCE — POLICE POWER — STATUTES.

Act Cong. Aug. 8, 1890, c. 728, 26 Stat. 313 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3177), providing that intoxicating liquors transported into any state shall, on arrival therein, be subject to the operation of the laws of the state, enacted within the police power, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors had been produced in the state, does not authorize the state to enact laws materially interfering with interstate commerce, but only subjects intoxicating liquors shipped from one state into another to the laws of the state to which it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Bacon v. Ranson, No. 32418.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S.W. 828; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S.W. 453; State ex rel. McClintock v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298, 204 S.W. 806; Laws 1917, pp. 237-242; State v. Freehold Investment Co., 305 Mo.......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...L. Ed. 128, 308 U.S. 132, 60 S. Ct. 163; Eberle v. Michigan, 58 L. Ed. 803, 232 U.S. 700, 34 S. Ct. 464; State v. Parker Distilling Co., 237 Mo. 103, 139 S.W. 453; Griesedieck Bros. Brewing Co. v. Moore, 262 Fed. 582; General Sales and Liquor Co. v. Becker, 14 F. Supp. 348; State v. Privitt......
  • State v. Wipke, No. 36793.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 7, 1939
    ...v. Purcell, 85 S.W. (2d) 543, 337 Mo. 574. (9) The State has full power to regulate the liquor traffic. State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S.W. 453; State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59; Mahoney v. Triner, 304 U.S. 401, 58 Sup. Ct. McCune, Caldwell &a......
  • City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission, No. 21072.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 10, 1918
    ...as to the fares that should be charged. A similar question of power came before this court in the case of State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S. W. 453. There it was conceded, and all of the authorities held, that the Legislature had the absolute 207 S.W. 803 and exclusive powe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Bacon v. Ranson, No. 32418.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S.W. 828; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S.W. 453; State ex rel. McClintock v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298, 204 S.W. 806; Laws 1917, pp. 237-242; State v. Freehold Investment Co., 305 Mo.......
  • Graff v. Priest, No. 40171.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 21, 1947
    ...L. Ed. 128, 308 U.S. 132, 60 S. Ct. 163; Eberle v. Michigan, 58 L. Ed. 803, 232 U.S. 700, 34 S. Ct. 464; State v. Parker Distilling Co., 237 Mo. 103, 139 S.W. 453; Griesedieck Bros. Brewing Co. v. Moore, 262 Fed. 582; General Sales and Liquor Co. v. Becker, 14 F. Supp. 348; State v. Privitt......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...146 S.W. 1145; State ex rel. v. Hudson, 73 Mo. 302; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S.W. 828; State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 270, 139 S.W. 453; State ex inf. v. Mo. Athletic Club, 261 Mo. 576, 170 S.W. 904; State ex rel. Tarleton D.G. Co. v. Alt, 224 Mo. 493, 123 S.W. 882; State ex ......
  • State v. Wipke, No. 36793.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 7, 1939
    ...v. Purcell, 85 S.W. (2d) 543, 337 Mo. 574. (9) The State has full power to regulate the liquor traffic. State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S.W. 453; State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59; Mahoney v. Triner, 304 U.S. 401, 58 Sup. Ct. McCune, Caldwell & ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT