Zukaitis v. Fitzgerald
| Decision Date | 25 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 2771,2772.,2771 |
| Citation | 18 F. Supp. 1000 |
| Parties | ZUKAITIS et al. v. FITZGERALD, Governor et al. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Knappen, Uhl, Bryant & Snow, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and M. J. Donnelly, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
David H. Crowley, former Atty. Gen., of the State of Michigan, and Raymond W. Starr, Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Before SIMONS, Circuit Judge, and LEDERLE and RAYMOND, District Judges.
Plaintiffs in the above-entitled suits seek permanent injunctions restraining defendants from enforcing section 40 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act (Pub.Acts 1933, Ex.Sess., No. 8) and from enforcing certain regulations adopted by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. They allege that the statute and regulations complained of, in whole or in part, violate various federal and state constitutional provisions and that some of the regulations exceed the powers granted to the commission by the State Constitution and by the Legislature. In addition, the Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company objects upon constitutional grounds to a regulation of the commission adopted April 15, 1936, requiring all outstate breweries to have a seller's license; challenges the validity of the order of the commission imposing upon the company a $2,000 fine; and prays injunction against its collection.
In support of the validity of the statutory provision and of the commission's regulations and actions, defendants rely upon the commission's construction of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and the Webb-Kenyon Act; and upon its construction of article 16, § 11, of the Michigan State Constitution, as amended November 8, 1932.1
They contend that beer or other alcoholic liquor when shipped into Michigan contrary to its laws is not an article of interstate commerce and therefore is not protected by article 1, § 8 (the Commerce Clause), of the Federal Constitution. They urge that the effect of the Webb-Kenyon Act (27 U.S.C. § 122 27 U.S.C.A. § 122) and of the Twenty-First Amendment was to divest intoxicating liquors of interstate character, and that a state may now regulate the transportation or importation into the state of any and all intoxicating liquors, including beer, for use, storage, or sale. They contend that by section 11 of article 16 of the State Constitution the Liquor Control Commission was granted absolute authority to adopt any and all rules and regulations it thought wise and best, and to regulate and control the importation, transportation, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages, except as prohibited or limited by legislative act. They assert the commission's complete authority over the alcoholic beverage traffic in Michigan except where limited or prohibited by statute, claiming that body to be not only an administrative but a legislative body as well, clothed also with power to levy and enforce fines for nonobservance of its regulations. Defendants state in their brief concerning the commission, "It is given full authority to pass such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary and proper to control the alcoholic beverage traffic."
The evidence clearly discloses transactions involving interstate commerce and that the plaintiffs' property rights are such as to give them the right to question the validity of the statute and regulations.
In support of their contentions that the statute and regulations complained of violate the Federal Constitution, plaintiffs rely upon Joseph Triner Corporation v. Arundel (D.C.) 11 F.Supp. 145, Young's Market Co. v. State Board of Equalization (D.C.) 12 F.Supp. 140, and Pacific Fruit & Produce Company v. Martin et al., 16 F.Supp. 34, decided February 28, 1936 (U.S.District Court, Western District of Washington).
It is apparent that the statute and regulations complained of impose discriminatory burdens upon out-state liquor, but we are not convinced that such discriminations are so wholly unrelated to the powers now returned to the states by the Twenty-First Amendment to regulate or forbid the importation of liquors into Michigan that we can say with that clearness which is imperative that such rules and regulations are unconstitutional. This view is confirmed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of State Board of Equalization of California et al. v. Young's Market Company et al. (November 9, 1936) 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. ___. In that case, a construction was placed upon the Twenty-First Amendment which clearly recognizes the right of the states to forbid entirely transportation and importation of liquor, to impose heavy importation fees and to exact importers' license fees. The Supreme Court in that case refused to construe the amendment in such manner as to limit these rights to those states which prohibit manufacture and sale of liquor within their borders. It also declined to hold that a state is limited in the manner of regulating importations to such restrictions as are intended for the purpose of protecting public health, safety, or morals. It recognized that regulations permitted by the Twenty-First Amendment could not be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, plaintiffs' contentions of invalidity of the Michigan statute and regulations complained of, so far as they are based upon the Federal Constitution, cannot be sustained.
We do not, however, find ourselves in accord with defendants' contentions that section 11 of article 16 of the Michigan Constitution vests the Michigan Liquor Control Commission with complete authority over the alcoholic beverage traffic except where expressly limited by statute. The commission is, in fact, exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Such exercise of power contravenes the fundamental theory of our Republican form of government. It is well recognized that in construing a constitutional provision the court should have recourse to the whole instrument, if necessary, to ascertain the true intent and meaning thereof. One of the chief merits of the American system of written Constitutions is the separation of the powers of government....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Thornbury v. Gregory
...is also called to the opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, in the case of Zukaitis v. Fitzgerald, 18 F.Supp. 1000, filed December 15, 1936. The case is referred to in publication known as Liquor Control Law Service of Commerce Clearing House, Inc......
-
Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Commission
...Market Co. et al., 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. 38, followed and applied by a local three-judge court in Zukaitis et al. v. Fitzgerald et al., D.C., 18 F.Supp. 1000, has now been narrowed in argument and briefs to a consideration of the assailed statute in respect to invalidity under ......
-
In re Pike, M85-254 CA2.
...alcoholic beverages throughout the State of Michigan. The authority of the M.L.C.C. to regulate this traffic is plenary. Zukaitis v. Fitzgerald, 18 F.Supp. 1000 (1937); Mutchall v. City of Kalamazoo, 323 Mich. 215, 35 N.W.2d 245 (1948). However, the M.L.C.C.'s authority is limited to the re......
-
Matter of Ratcliff Enterprises, Inc.
...alcohol in the state of Michigan. In the area of regulation of the traffic of alcohol the M.L.C.C. authority is plenary, Zukaitis v. Fitzgerald, 18 F.Supp. 1000 (1937), Mutchall v. City of Kalamazoo, 323 Mich. 215, 35 N.W.2d 245 (1948), but the commission's authority is limited to the regul......