United States v. Dewitt

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The questions certified resolve themselves into this: Has Congress power, under the Constitution, to prohibit trade within the limits of a State? That Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the' several States, and with the Indian tribes, the Constitution expressly declares. But this *44 express grant of power to regulate commerce among the States has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate States; except, indeed, as a necessary and proper means for carrying into execution some other power expressly granted or vested. It has been urged in argument that the provision under which this indictment was framed is within this exception; that the prohibition of the sale of the illuminating oil described in the indictment was in aid and support of the internal revenue tax imposed on other illuminating oils. And we have been referred to provisions, supposed to be analogous, regulating the business of distilling liquors, and the mode of packing various manufactured articles; but the analogy appears to fail at the essential point, for the regulations referred to are restricted to the very articles which are the subject of taxation, and are plainly adapted to secure the collection of the tax imposed; while, in the case before us, no tax is imposed on the oils the sale of which is prohibited. If the prohibition, therefore, has any relation to taxation at all, it is merely that of increasing the production and sale of other oils, and, consequently, the revenue derived from them, by excluding from the market the particular kind described. This consequence is too remote and too uncertain to warrant us in saying that the prohibition is an appropriate and plainly adapted means for carrying into execution the power of laying and collecting taxes. There is, indeed, no reason for saying that it was regarded by Congress as such a means, except that it is found in an act imposing internal duties. Standing bj' itself, it is plainly a regulation of police; and that it was so considered, if not by the Congress which enacted it, certainly by the succeeding Congress, may be inferred from the circumstance, that while all special taxes on illuminating oils were repealed by the act of July 20th,' 1868, which subjected distillers and refiners to the tax on sales as manufacturers, this prohibition was left uurepealed. *45 As a police regulation, relating exclusively to the internal trade of the States, it can only have effect where the legislative authority of Congress excludes, territorially, all State legislation, as for example, in the District of Columbia. Within State limits, it can have no constitutional operation. This has been so frequently declai’ed by this court, results so obviously from the terms of the Constitution, and has been so fully explained and supported on former occasions, * that we think it unnecessary to enter again upon the discussion. The first question certified must, therefore, be answered in the negative. The second question must also be answered in the negative, except so far as the section named operates within the United States, but without the limits of any State. Footnotes [*] License Cases, 5 Howard, 504; Passenger Cases, 7 Id. 283; License Ta x Cases, 5 Wallace, 470; and the cases cited.