Wilkerson v. Rahrer
Decision Date | 25 May 1891 |
Citation | 35 L.Ed. 572,11 S.Ct. 865,140 U.S. 545 |
Parties | WILKERSON, Sheriff, v. RAHRER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an application for a writ of habeas corpus made to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas by Charles A. Rahrer, who alleged in his petition that he was illegally and wrongfully restrained of his liberty by John M. Wilkerson, sheriff of Shawnee county, Kan., in violation of the constitution of the United States. The writ was issued, and, return having been made thereto, the cause was heard on the following agreed statement of facst: The circuit court discharged the petitioner, and the cause was brought to this court by appeal. The opinion will be found in 43 Fed. Rep. 556.
The constitution of Kansas provides: 'The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be forever prohibited in this state, except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.' 1 Gen. St. Kan. 1889, p. 107. The sections of the Kansas statutes claimed to have been violated by the petitioner are as follows: etc. 'Any person without taking out and having a permit to sell intoxicating liquors as provided in this act, or any person not lawfully and in good faith engaged in the business of a druggist, who shall directly or indirectly sell or barter any spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented or other intoxicating liquors, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days.' 1 Gen. St. Kan. c. 31, §§ 380, 381, 386. On August 8, 1890, an act of congress was approved, entitled 'An act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several states and with foreign countries in certain cases,' which reads as follows: 'That all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any state or territory, or remaining therein, for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such state or territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such state or territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such state or territory, and shall not exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.' 26 St. 313.
L. B. Kellogg, A. L. Williams, R. B. Welch, and J. N. Ives, for appellant.
Louis J. Blum, Edgar C. Blum, and David Overmyer, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 550-554 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The power of the state to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order, and prosperity is a power originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered to them by the general government, nor directly restrained by the constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive. And this court has uniformly recognized state legislation, legitimately for police purposes, as not, in the sense of the constitution, necessarily infringing upon any right which has been confided expressly or by implication to the national government. The fourteenth amendment, in forbidding a state to make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or to deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law, or to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, did not invest, and did not attempt to invest, congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation. As observed by Mr. Justice BRADLEY, delivering the opinion of the court in the CivilRig hts Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 13, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, the legislation under that amendment cannot ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bixman
...Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Sup. Ct. 664, 42 L. Ed. 1088; Act Aug. 8, 1890, c. 728 (26 Stat. 313); Rahrer's Case, 140 U. S. 545, 11 Sup. Ct. 865, 35 L. Ed. 572; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S., loc. cit. 445, 18 Sup. Ct. 674, 42 L. Ed. 1100. Inasmuch as there is no discrimina......
-
State v. Moore
... ... part of its police power. ( Mugler v. Kansas, 123 ... U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205; Re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, ... 11 S.Ct. 865, 35 L.Ed. 572; South Carolina v. United ... States, 199 U.S. 437, 453, 4 Ann. Cas. 737, 26 S.Ct ... 110, 50 ... ...
-
State v. Salt Lake Tribune Pub. Co.
... ... Michigan , 135 U.S. 161, 10 S.Ct ... 725, 34 L.Ed. 150; Crutcher v. Kentucky , 141 U.S ... 47, 11 S.Ct. 851, 35 L.Ed. 649; In re Rahrer , 140 ... U.S. 545, 11 S.Ct. 865, 35, 35 L.Ed. 572 [35] L.Ed ... While ... the state of Utah could perhaps entirely prohibit the sale of ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
... ... attempted of the articles which thus remain subject to the ... exercise of the police power. In Rahrer's Case, 140 U.S ... 545, 11 S.Ct. 865, the court quote with approval the language ... of Mr. Justice CATRON in the License Cases, 5 How. 599: ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. 95, 109 S.Ct. 2324, 105 L.Ed.2d 74 (1989), 645 Quirin, Ex parte, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 2, 87 L.Ed.3 (1942), 1311-12 R Rahrer, In re, 140 U.S. 545, 11 S.Ct. 866, 35 L.Ed. 572 (1891), 720 Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), 617-19 Rail......
-
Erroneous Injunctions
...Overruling and the Revival of "Unconstitutional" Statutes, 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1902, 1908-17 (1993) (collecting cases); cf. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 564-65 (1891) (holding that, where a state enacts a law that may not validly be applied to interstate commerce without congressional consent ......
-
The Dormant Commerce Clause: the Origin Story and the "considerable Uncertainties"- 1824 to 1945
...reasoned that Congress could permit state regulations on interstate commerce without violating the Constitution. See Wil-kerson v. Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 562, [48]Cooley, 53 U.S. at 318. The Court is clearly referring to pilots like those in the case working in interstate commerce. [49]Coole......
-
The Market Participant Doctrine and the Clear Statement Rule
...238 (2005). 33. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 124-25 (1890). 34. Wilson Act of 1890, 27 U.S.C. § 121 (2000) (upheld in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891)); Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, 27 U.S.C. § 122 (2000) (upheld in Clark Distilling Co. v. W. Md. Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 35. W. and S. Life Ins.......