Trigo Bros. Packing Corp. v. Davis, Civ. No. 9533.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1958
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 9533.
• Citation: 159 F. Supp. 841
• Parties: TRIGO BROS. PACKING CORP., Plaintiff, v. James W. S. DAVIS, Supervisor in Charge of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division in Puerto Rico, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

159 F. Supp. 841

TRIGO BROS. PACKING CORP., Plaintiff, v. James W. S. DAVIS, Supervisor in Charge of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division in Puerto Rico, Defendant.

Civ. No. 9533.

United States District Court D. Puerto Rico, San Juan Division.

March 26, 1958.

Sydney Krause and Luis E. Garcia Benitez, Santurce, P. R., for plaintiff.

Ruben Rodriguez Antongiorgi, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., for defendant.

Juan B. Fernandez Badillo, amicus curiae, San Juan, P. R., for defendant.

RUIZ-NAZARIO, District Judge.

In this action for declaratory judgment plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court to the effect that the size of fill provisions of Section 5 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (Title 27 U.S.C.A. Sec. 205(e)) and the Regulations issued thereunder are inapplicable to intrastate liquor transactions wholly consummated within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Specifically, plaintiff objects to the intra-commonwealth application of Section 70 of the Wine Regulations, prohibiting the selling of wine in containers other than those made standard by the Regulations. Section 72(a) of the Regulations sets forth certain standards but does not include a 12 ounce or ¾ size. Plaintiff has established a thriving business in selling its wines within the Commonwealth in 12 oz. bottles and would suffer great loss if the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the wine regulations issued thereunder were given an intra-commonwealth application.

Section 17 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U.S.C.A. Sec. 211 provides as follows:

"Definitions; amendment or repeal of chapter; separability clause.

"(a) As used in this chapter—

"(1) The term `United States' means the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia; the term `State' includes a Territory and the District of Columbia; and the term `Territory' means Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

"(2) The term `interstate or foreign commerce' means commerce between any State and any place outside thereof, or commerce within any Territory or the District of Columbia, or between points within the same State but through any place outside thereof."

Thus the argument for defendant is that as the word "State" includes a "Territory", and the term "Territory" includes Puerto Rico, commerce within Puerto Rico is "interstate" or foreign commerce, by the definition stated in (a) (2) of Section 17, (Sec. 211(a) (2), Title 27 U.S.C.A.), and is thus subject to the fill provisions of the Wine Regulations.

As stated on page 5 of the brief of the amicus curiae, this is a narrow issue, and does not involve any question of the power of Congress under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, nor any question of the effect of a unilateral amendment by Congress of the provisions of the compact which determine the relations between the United States and Puerto Rico.

Plaintiff's position is that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the regulations issued under it are no longer applicable since Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth to purely intra-commonwealth wine transactions, and that the internal commerce of Puerto Rico is a matter of local concern. This is also the position of the amicus curiae.

United States v. Figueroa Rios, D.C., 140 F.Supp. 376 dealt with intra-commonwealth application of the Federal Firearms Act. Title 15 U.S.C.A. § 902 (e). A review of the different bodies politic fashioned by Congress under Art. 4, Sec. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution was made by the Court and a discussion of the labels applied to Territories by the Supreme Court was undertaken, with the result that the Court concluded that Puerto Rico was no longer covered by the labels "Territories" and "possessions" as used in general statutes, which reflect the supervisory powers of Congress over the territories. The Figueroa case in addition particularizes, beginning at the third paragraph on page 380 of 140 F. Supp. the differences, the important political differences between Organic Act Puerto Rico and Commonwealth Puerto Rico. It is unnecessary at this time to quote at length from the Figueroa case; however, one paragraph is appropriate in the present context as a starting point for a discussion of the point involved in the case at bar, but left undecided by Figueroa: "At present, such local transactions or conduct are...