No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Constitutional Law in 1933–34
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Following the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, the state of Ohio authorized by statute the creation of a state liquor monopoly, purchased $4,500,000 worth of liquor, and perfected plans for the retailing of it through 187 stores owned and managed by the state. In Ohio v. Helvering, the state sought an injunction to restrain the commissioner of internal revenue from collecting from the state the customary federal excise taxes upon the sale of intoxicating liquors. It alleged the immunity of the state and its instrumentalities from federal taxation and further claimed that the federal taxing statutes were not intended by Congress to apply to the states. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Sutherland, upheld the collection of the tax, reaffirming the doctrine laid down in 1905 in the South Carolina Dispensary Case. The immunity from federal taxation enjoyed by the states extends only to those agencies and functions which are governmental in character and not to those which are proprietary. “When a state enters the market place seeking customers, it divests itself of its quasi-sovereignty pro tanto, and takes on the character of a trader, so far, at least, as the taxing power of the federal government is concerned.” The Court rejected as “altogether fanciful” the argument that the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and its later repeal had so altered the status of the liquor traffic that its conduct by the state has become an exercise of the state's police power, and hence a governmental operation immune from federal taxation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1935
References
1 292 U.S. 360, 1934.
2 South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 1905.
3 292 U.S. 1, 1934.
4 290 U.S. 70, 1933.
5 292 U.S. 498, 1934.
6 292 U.S. 474, 1934.
7 For a careful analysis of this whole movement for the federal control of local rates, see the excellent note by Mansfield, Harvey C., “Interstate Commerce Commission Control of Intrastate Rates,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 44, p. 133 (Nov., 1934)Google Scholar.
8 290 U.S. 534, 1934.
9 110 U.S. 651, 1884.
10 292 U.S. 313, 1934.
11 134 U.S. 1, 1890.
12 2 Dallas 419, 1793.
13 291 U.S. 286, 1934.
14 291 U.S. 339, 1934.
15 290 U.S. 371, 1933.
16 Other cases involving interpretations of federal judicial power are Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18, 1933, dealing with the waiver of state immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 1933, relating to the right of a federal judge to comment upon evidence.
17 292 U.S. 571, 1934.
18 Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 1880.
19 291 U.S. 457, 1934.
20 291 U.S. 217, 1934.
21 The same result is reached in Massey v. United States, 291 U.S. 608, 1934.
22 290 U.S. 276, 1933.
23 See the excellent article, “The Factor Case and Double Criminality in Extradition,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, p. 274 (April, 1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Three cases dealing with the problem of jurisdiction over federal ceded districts, but establishing no new principles, are Standard Oil Company v. California, 291 U.S. 242, 1934; United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357,1933; Murray v. Gerrick & Company, 291 U.S. 315, 1934.
25 291 U.S. 502 1934.
26 277 U.S. 350, 1928. For comment, see this Review, Vol. 23, p. 92Google Scholar.
27 285 U.S. 262, 1932. For comment see this Review, Vol. 27, p. 51Google Scholar.
28 291 U.S. 619, 1934.
29 Two cases involving due process problems relating to utility rates are Dayton Power & Light Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U.S. 290, 1934; and Columbia Gas & Fuel Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U.S. 398, 1934.
30 290 U.S. 570, 1934.
31 264 U.S. 504, 1924. For comment, see this Review, Vol. 19, p. 62Google Scholar.
32 291 U.S. 566, 1934.
33 291 U.S. 352, 1934.
34 292 U.S. 40, 1934.
35 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wallace 533, 1869.
36 195 U.S. 27, 1904.
37 259 U.S. 20, 1922.
38 See the present writer's analysis of this whole problem in “Social and Economic Control Through Federal Taxation,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 18, p. 759 (June, 1934)Google Scholar.
39 291 U.S. 300, 1934.
40 Other cases involving state taxation under the Fourteenth Amendment are Utley v. St. Petersburg, 292 U.S. 106, 1934, and Concordia Fire Insurance Company v. Illinois, 292 U.S. 535, 1934.
41 291 U.S. 97, 1934.
42 290 U.S. 190, 1933.
43 Supra, note 25.
44 290 U.S. 398, 1934.
45 Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 1921, and Marcus Brown Holding Company v Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 1921.
46 292 U.S. 426, 1934.
47 290 U.S. 169, 1933.
48 292 U.S. 511, 1934.
49 292 U.S. 57, 1934.
50 290 U.S. 1, 1933.
51 290 U.S. 158, 1933.
52 291 U.S. 584, 1934.
53 291 U.S. 466, 1934.
54 291 U.S. 17, 1934.
55 223 U.S. 1, 1912.
56 292 U.S. 230, 1934.