Skip to main content
· 1/8/1917

Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

Citations

  • 242 U.S. 311
  • 37 S. Ct. 180
  • 61 L. Ed. 326
  • 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2189

Syllabus

<p>The West Virginia prohibition law of February, • 1913, Code 1913, c. 32A, as amended by Acts of 1915, p. 33, id. p. 660, includes in its prohibitions the bringing into the State by carriers of intoxicating liquors intended for personal use and the receipt and possession of such liquors, when so introduced, for personal use.</p> <p>Since the right asserted by the plaintiff is a permanent right to ship such liquors into the State, the decision concerns the state law as now amended, though the amendment occurred after the decision of the court below and after the first argument in this court.</p> <p>Without considering whether governmental power respecting intoxicating liquors extends to the prohibition of personal use, the right to restrict the means of procuring them'for that purpose exists as an incident to the indubitable power to forbid manufacture and sale. Therefore these prohibitions of the West Virginia law are not offensive to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> <p>The prohibitions, however, unless sanctioned by a valid law of Congress, would be repugnant to the Constitution as a direct burden on interstate commerce and an interference with the power of Congress to regulate it. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100.</p> <p>The Act of Congress of March 1, 1913, 37 Stat. 699, known as the Webb-Kenyon Act, operated, if constitutional, to give effect to the above stated prohibitions of the West Virginia law in respect of liquors shipped into the State for personal use, by withdrawing from such shipments the immunity of interstate commerce, and, to forbid the shipment or transportation into the State of liquors intended to be received or possessed there for personal use contrary to such state prohibitions. Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 238 U. S. 190, distinguished.</p> <p>The Webb-Kenyon Act is a legitimate exertion of the power to regulate commerce.</p> <p>That power, in the case of intoxicants, because of their character extends to the total pro

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • upholding Act criminalizing shipment of intoxicating liquor into a state to be used in violation of that state’s law
  • upholding Act criminalizing shipment of intoxicating liquor into a state to be used in violation of that state's law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, McReynolds, Holmes, Van Devanter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.