tax

Opinion of the Court.

in the case of every corporation, joint stock company and association, liable to taxation thereunder shall be the amount of capital stock employed within this State."

It was claimed that the Michigan corporation, having come within the jurisdiction of New York by compliance with all the provisions of law imposing conditions for transacting business within the State, was denied the equal protection of the law when subjected to a tax from which were exempted other corporations, foreign and domestic, which wholly manufactured the same class of goods within the State, and that such a tax Iwas an unjust discrimination against the corporation, whose place of manufacture was in the State of Michigan. But this court held otherwise, saying:

"If the object of the law in question was to impose a tax upon products of other States, while exempting similar domestic goods from taxation, there might be reason to contend that such a distinction was constitutionally objectionable as tending to affect or regulate commerce between the States. But we think that obviously such is not the purpose of this legislation. It will be perceived that the tax is prescribed as well for New York corporations as for those of other States. It is true that manufacturing or mining corporations wholly engaged in carrying on manufacture or mining ores within the State of New York are exempted from this tax; but such exemption is not restricted to New York corporations, but includes corporations of other States as well, when wholly engaged in manufacturing within the State."

So, in the present case, the exemption is not confined to Ohio corporations or copartnerships, but extends as well to foreign corporations whose place of manufacturing is within the State of Ohio; and so, likewise the tax is imposed on Ohio corporations which manufacture goods in other States and establish places for their sale within the State of Ohio, or which, manufacturing within the State, establish places within the State distinct from the manufactory, where their liquors are sold and delivered.

In exempting sales in quantities exceeding one gallon at the place of manufacture, and in imposing the tax upon such sales

Opinion of the Court.

when made at places elsewhere, the legislature of Ohio was, in the exercise of its police power, aiming to restrict the evils of saloons, or places where liquors are drunk. By imposing the tax upon the latter, the law, to some extent, is calculated to lessen an acknowledged source of vice and disorder.

The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, in construing the statute in question, has clearly pointed out the reasons that actuated the legislature in distinguishing between places where the liquors are manufactured and those where liquors are sold to be drunk on the premises. Thus in the case of Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St. 539, 574, that court said: "It was for the legislature to determine the forms of the traffic that required to be regulated as a source of evil. It has in a measure drawn a line between a distillery and a brewery on the one hand and a saloon on the other. There is nothing unreal in the distinction. It is known by all men, and in one respect probably too well by many men. And unless absolute prohibition is resorted to no more practical distinction could be made."

It remains to consider whether the court below erred in finding, under the facts agreed upon, that the Reymann Brewing Company has established a place in the city of Steubenville, in the State of Ohio, where its beer was sold and delivered, and thus has become liable to the tax prescribed by the law.

It is sufficient to say that it is distinctly admitted that the brewing company not only ships its beer in barrels and cases, in filling orders received, and delivers it directly to the purchasers, (which sales and deliveries are not by the statute subjected to any tax,) but also maintains a storehouse in Steubenville, where it sells and delivers beer and collects payment. Such transactions constitute the brewing company a trafficker in intoxicating liquor having a place, other than the place of manufacture, where the traffic is carried on within the meaning of the law. And, of course, it is obvious that such liquors, sold and delivered within the State of Ohio, are within the provisions of the statute of the United States, known as the Wilson law, (Act of August 8, 1890, c. 728,) which provides that intoxicating liquors transported into any State for sale or storage therein shall be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such

Opinion of the Court.

State, enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquor had been produced in such State, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise. 26 Stat. 313.

As this statute subjects intoxicating liquors imported into a State to the operation and effect of the laws of such State only when enacted in the exercise of its police powers, it is contended that such is not the character of the Dow law; that, as it contains no prohibition upon the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors, and only purports to regulate the trafficking therein, it is not a police measure.

As we have heretofore stated, the Supreme Court of Ohio has construed the law to aim at controlling and regulating sales in quantities less than one gallon in saloons or at places other than the place of manufacture, and to be, therefore, within the scope of the police power. We think that this view of the meaning and intent of the statute is consistent with its language, and, even if not bound by the construction put upon the statute by the state court when applying the provisions of the Wilson law, we do not hesitate to adopt it.

A similar contention was disposed of by this court in the case of Vance v. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438, 447, and where it was said:

"From the fact that the state laws permit the sale of liquor, subject to particular restrictions, and only upon enumerated conditions, it does not follow that the law is not a manifestation of the police power of the State. The plain purpose of the act of Congress having been to allow state regulations to operate upon the sale of original packages of intoxicants coming from other States, it would destroy its obvious meaning to construe it as permitting the state laws to attach to and control the sale only in case the States absolutely forbade sales of liquor and not to apply in case the States determined to restrict or regulate the same."

These views prevailed in the court below, where it was held that manufacturers of intoxicating liquors within and without the State may sell at the manufactory and ship to any part

Syllabus.

of the State of Ohio, and may solicit orders for their goods in any part of the State to be shipped from the manufactory; but that if they establish places within the State, distinct from the manufactory, where their goods are to be stored, for the purposes of sale and delivery, and such goods are there sold and delivered, then they become traffickers within the meaning of the law and are liable to pay the tax. Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, 92 Fed. Rep. 28.

Accordingly the decree of the Circuit Court, dismissing the bill of complaint, is

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the result.

Affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON.

UNITED STATES v. WOLFF.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND

CIRCUIT.

Nos. 15, 16. Argued December 12, 1899.-Decided December 17, 1900.

These cases are concerned with the classification of certain articles imported by the respondents under the tariff act of 1890. Those imported by E. A. Morrison & Son were variously colored in imitation of "cat's eyes or "tiger's eyes,” and were strung. Others were colored in resemblance to the garnet, aqua marine, moonstone and topaz. Those imported by Wolff & Co. were in imitation of pearls, it is claimed, and were also strung. The contention is as to how they shall be classified or made dutiable-whether under paragraph 108 or under paragraph 454 of the act of 1890.

Held, that if the act of 1890 did not as specifically provide for beads as prior acts, glass beads as such were in the legislative mind and their various conditions contemplated. It was impossible to have in contemplation glass beads, loose, unthreaded and unstrung (445), and not have the exact opposite in contemplation-beads not loose, beads threaded and strung, and made provision for them. What provision? Were they to be dutiable at the same or at a higher rate than beads unthreaded or

Opinion of the Court.

unstrung? If at the same rate-if all beads were to be dutiable at the same rate, why have qualified any of them? Were some to be dutiable at one rate and some at another rate? If made of plain glass, were they to be dutiable at sixty per centum under paragraph 108; if tinted or made to the color of some precious stone, were they to be dutiable at ten per centum under paragraph 454? No reason is assigned for such discrimination, and we are not disposed to infer it. It is a more reasonable inference that beads threaded of all kinds were intended to be dutiable at a higher rate than beads unthreaded, and if there can be a choice of provisions that intention must determine. Indeed, admitting that either provision (paragraph 108 or paragraph 454) equally applied, the statute prescribed the rule to be that "if two or more rates of duty shall be applicable to any imported article, it shall pay duty at the highest of such rates."

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for the United States.

Mr. Albert Comstock for Morrison and for Wolff.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases are concerned with the classification of certain articles imported by the respondents under the tariff act of 1890. Those imported by E. A. Morrison & Son were variously colored in imitation of "cat's eyes" or "tiger's eyes," and were strung. Others were colored in resemblance to the garnet, aqua marine, moonstone and topaz. Those imported by Wolff & Co. were in imitation of pearls, it is claimed, and were also strung. The contention is as to how they shall be classified or made dutiable whether under paragraph 108 or under paragraph 454 of the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 567.

Paragraph 108 provides :

"Thin blown glass, blown with or without a mold, including glass chimneys and all other manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, sixty per centum ad valorem." Paragraph 454 provides:

"Precious stones of all kinds, cut but not set, ten per centum ad valorem; if set, and not specially provided for in this act,