The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 48

[517] 41 Stat. 324 (1919).

[518] 267 U.S. at 436-439. _See also_ Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. _v._ Illinois C.R. Co., 299 U.S. 334 (1937).

[519] United States _v._ Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 116-117 (1941).

[520] Roland Co. _v._ Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 669 (1946).

[521] Polish Alliance _v._ Labor Board, 322 U.S. 643, 650 (1944). _Cf._ the opinion of Chief Justice Vinson for the Court in Bus Employees _v._ Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383 (1951).

[522] Federalist No. 32.

[523] 9 Wheat. 1, 11, 226 (1824).

[524] Madison, IV, Letters and Other Writings, 14-15 (Philadelphia, 1865).

[525] 9 Wheat. 1, 203.

[526] 9 Wheat. at 210-211.

[527] 9 Wheat. at 13-14; _also_ ibid. 16.

[528] 9 Wheat. 17-18, 209.

[529] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[530] 12 How. 299 (1851).

[531] Congressional regulation of commerce, however, does not have to be uniform. The uniformity rule is a test of the invalidity of State legislation affecting commerce, not the validity of Congressional legislation regulating commerce. Clark Distilling Co. _v._ W.M.R. Co., 242 U.S. 311, 327 (1917); Currin _v._ Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 14 (1939); Prudential Ins. Co. _v._ Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946).

[532] Simpson _v._ Shepard, 230 U.S. 352 (1913).

[533] Ibid. 400-402.

[534] McCarroll _v._ Dixie Greyhound Lines, 309 U.S. 176, 188-189 (1940). F.D.G. Ribble's _State and National Power Over Commerce_ (Columbia University Press, 1937) is an excellent study both of the Court's formulas and of the arbitral character of its task in this field of Const.i.tutional Law. On the latter point, see especially Chapters X and XII. The late Chief Justice Stone took repeated occasion to stress the "balancing" and "adjusting" role of the Court when applying the commerce clause in relation to State power. _See_ his words in South Carolina State Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 184-192 (1938); California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 113-116 (1941); Parker _v._ Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 362-363 (1943); and Southern Pacific _v._ Arizona, 325. U.S. 761, 766-770 (1945). _See also_ Justice Black for the Court in United States _v._ South-Eastern Underwriters a.s.soc., 322 U.S.

533, 548-549 (1944).

[535] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[536] Compare, for example, May _v._ New Orleans, 178 U.S. 496 (1900); and the recent case of Hooven & Allison Co. _v._ Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945). In the latter case the benefits of the original package doctrine were extended to imports from the Philippine Islands t.i.tle to which did not vest in the importer until their arrival in the United States.

[537] Freeman _v._ Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 251 (1946).

[538] Philadelphia & R.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania (State Freight Tax Case), 15 Wall. 232 (1873).

[539] Headnotes. Said the Court: "The rule has been a.s.serted with great clearness, that whenever the subjects over which a power to regulate commerce is a.s.serted are in their nature national, or admit of one uniform system or plan of regulation, they may justly be said to be of such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress. Surely transportation of pa.s.sengers or merchandise through a State, or from one State to another, is of this nature. It is of national importance that over that subject there should be but one regulating power, for if one State can directly tax persons or property pa.s.sing through it, or tax them indirectly by levying a tax upon their transportation, every other may, and thus commercial intercourse between States remote from each other may be destroyed." 15 Wall. at 279-280, citing Cooley _v._ Port Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851); Gilman. _v._ Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 (1866); Crandall _v._ Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 42 (1868).

[540] 116 U.S. 517 (1886).

[541] Ibid. 527.

[542] Heisler _v._ Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 (1922).

[543] 262 U.S. 172 (1923).

[544] Ibid. 178. _See also_ Diamond Match Co. _v._ Ontonagon 188 U.S. 82 (1903).

[545] Hope Natural Gas Co. _v._ Hall, 274 U.S. 284 (1927). _See also_ American Manufacturing Co. _v._ St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919) in which there was imposed a license tax on manufacture of goods computed upon the amount of sales of the goods.

[546] 286 U.S. 165 (1932).

[547] Coverdale _v._ Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U.S. 604 (1938).

[548] Toomer _v._ Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948).

[549] Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. _v._ Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (1921).

Here a Tennessee corporation, in pursuance of its practice of purchasing grain in Kentucky to be transported to and used in its Tennessee mill, made a contract for the purchase of wheat, to be delivered in Kentucky on the cars of a public carrier, intending to forward it as soon as delivery was made. It was held that the transaction was in interstate commerce, notwithstanding the contract was made and to be performed in Kentucky; and that the possibility that the purchaser might change its mind after delivery and sell the grains in Kentucky or consign it to some other place in that State did not affect the essential character of the transaction. Interstate commerce, said the Court, "is not confined to transportation from one State to another, but comprehends all commercial intercourse between different States and all the component parts of that intercourse." Ibid. 290. Followed in Lemke _v._ Farmers Grain Co., 258 U.S. 50 (1922); and Flanagan _v._ Federal Coal Co., 267 U.S. 222 (1925).

[550] Eureka Pipe Line Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265 (1921).

[551] United Fuel Gas Co. _v._ Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277 (1921).

[552] Ibid. 281. _See also_ State Tax Commission _v._ Interstate Natural Gas Co., 284 U.S. 41 (1931) holding invalid a State privilege tax imposed on a foreign corporation selling to distributors in the State natural gas piped in from another State, whose only activity was the use of a thermometer and meter and reduction of pressure to permit vendee to draw off the gas. "The work done by the plaintiff is done upon the flowing gas to help the delivery and seems to us plainly to be an incident to the interstate commerce between Louisiana and Mississippi."

Ibid. 44.

[553] 12 Wheat. 419 (1827).

[554] Ibid. 449.

[555] 8 Wall. 123 (1860).

[556] Ibid. 140.

[557] 114 U.S. 622 (1885). _See also_ Pittsburgh & S. Coal Co. _v._ Bates, 156 U.S. 577 (1895).

[558] 114 U.S. at 632-633.

[559] Ibid. 634.

[560] _See_ Wagner _v._ Covington, 251 U.S. 95 (1919).

[561] Brimmer _v._ Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891); Patapsco Guano Co. _v._ Board of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345 (1898); Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. _v._ Board of Agriculture, 222 U.S. 380 (1912); Savage _v._ Jones, 225 U.S.

501 (1912); Foote & Co. _v._ Stanley, 232 U.S. 494 (1914).

[562] Standard Oil Co. _v._ Graves, 249 U.S. 389 (1919); Askren _v._ Continental Oil Co., 252 U.S. 444 (1920); Bowman _v._ Continental Oil Co., 256 U.S. 642 (1921); Texas Co. _v._ Brown, 258 U.S. 466 (1922).

[563] Sonneborn Bros. _v._ Cureton, 262 U.S. 506 (1923). Reviewing cases. _Cf._ Phipps _v._ Cleveland Refining Co., 261 U.S. 449 (1923).

[564] _See_ pp. 178, 238-239.