DOWNHAM ET AL.
v.
ALEXANDRIA COUNCIL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this dispute over whether Alexandria, Virginia could impose a special license tax on dealers selling beer and ale by the cask, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the record did not establish whether the beer and ale were manufactured out-of-state or in-state, making it impossible to determine whether a constitutional question involving interstate commerce or citizens' privileges and immunities had actually arisen. The Court declined to address hypothetical constitutional questions and noted that the second issue involved only state law interpretation, neither of which fell within the Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice FIELD,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The argument of counsel proceeds' upon the supposition that the beer and ale. in which the defendants dealt was manufactured either in a foreign'country, or in another State of the Union; but there is nothing in the record to warrant the supposition. The first question that the parties desired to present in the agreed statement is not, in truth, raised by the facts admitted. It is not alleged in the statement that the defendants were dealers in “foreign beer or ale,” or even in beer or ale manufactured without the State of Virginia. It' is only alleged that-they were dealers in beer and ale by the cask, which was not manufactured in the city of Alexandria. For anything which appears, the beer and ale in which they dealt may have been manufactured in other parts of the State. If manufactured wi'thin the State, the-exaction of the special lieeiise tax for the privilege of selling them in casks in Alexandria, would not, of course, be obnoxious to either clause of the Constitution cited. In that case, it would not interfere with any regulation of commerce with foreign nations, or between the States, or with any authority to make regulations for such commerce. Nor would it, in that case, impair any privileges or-immunities of citizens of other States, who, equally with citizens of Virginia, and upon the same terms, could deal in the city of Alexandria in similar goods. It is only equality of privileges and immunities between citizens of different States that the Constitution guarantees. T.he defendants have, in fact, presented for our consider ation a possible, but not an actual question, one which may-hereafter arise under the ordinance, but which has not arisen as yet; at least the record does not aver any facts which show-that it has arisen, and we cannot indulge in presumptions to supply the omissions of material averments. '
.The second question presented in the statement depends for its solution upon the construction of local statutes, and .does not involve the consideration of any act of Congress, or any provision of the Constitution of the United States.
We are of opinion that no question is raised by the record which this court can consider under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, and the writ of error must, therefore, be Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1939)…. 17 Stat. 13, § 1. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3230. The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 588, 591; Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U. S. 553, 560. Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall. 173; Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 207 U. S. 142; La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U. S. 465. Chalker v. Birmingham & N. W. Ry. Co., 249 U. S. 522; [*512] Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37; United States v. Wheeler, 254 U. S. 281; Douglas v. New York,…
-
Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1890)…nd sale. And there is no article, the right of the State to control or to prohibit the sale or manufacture of which within its limits is better established, than [*129] intoxicating liquors. license Cases, 5 How. 504 ; Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10 Wall. 173 ; Bartemeyer v. Iowa,. 18 Wall. 129; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25 ; Tiernan, v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 ; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201; Mugler v. Kansas and Kansas v. Ziebold, 123. U. S. 623; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1; Eilenbecker v. P…
-
United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cnty. & Vicinity v. Mayor & Council of the City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (U.S. 1984)…03), but declined to reach the Privileges and Immunities Clause question because the party challenging the ordinance was himself a resident of New Orleans. Id., at 546. See also Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U. S. 300 (1902); Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10 Wall. 173 (1870). Few decisions by state and federal courts have considered the question. See, e. g., Ward Baking Co. v. Fernandina, 29 F. 2d 789 (SD Fla. 1928); Mount Pleasant v. Clutch, 6 Iowa 546 (1858); In re Jarvis, 66 Kan. 329, 71 P. 576 (1903); Feche…