    
|
 Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997 |
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997 |
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
|
Encyclopedia Britannica - Main :: ORC-PAI |
|
|
ORIGINAL PACKAGE , a legal term in Amertca, meaning, in general usage, the package in which goods, intended for interstate commerce, are actually transported wholesale. The term is used chiefly in determining the boundary between Federal and state jurisdiction in the regulation of commerce, and derives special significance by reason of the conflict between the powers of Congress to regulate commerce and the police legislation of the several states with respect to commodities considered injurious to public health and morals, such as intoxicating liquors, cigarettes and oleomargarine. By the Federal constitution Congress is vested with the power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," and each state is forbidden, without the consent of Congress, to " lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws," and the basis of the law on the subject of " original
Chief
chief
original
Hampshire requiring a licence for the sale of wines or spirituous liquors in any quantity whatever, and in this case a barrel of gin had been bought in Boston Mass., carried to Dover, N.H., and there sold in the same barrel. Although the justices based their opinions on different principles, the court pronounced the laws constitutional. The justices did not even agree that the power of Congress to regulate an interstate shipment included the power to authorize a sale after shipment, which is the basis of the original package doctrine as applied to interstate commerce, and Chief Justice Taney with two other justices who were of this opinion held that a state might nevertheless in the exercise of its police powers regulate such sales so long as Congress did not pass an act for that purpose. In this confused and uncertain state the matter rested until the adjudication of Leisy v. Hardin & in 1889. In this case beer had been shipped from Illinois into Iowa and then sold in the original kegs and cases by an agent of the Illinois firm when Iowa had a law absolutely prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within its limits except for pharmaceutical, medicinal, chemical or sacramental purposes. None of the justices now denied that the power of Congress to regulate an interstate shipment included the power to authorize a sale after shipment, and although there was disagreement with reference to the right of a state to regulate the sale in the absence of an act of Congress for that purpose, the12 Wheaton 419. 2 Waring v. Mobile, 8 Wall
May v. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 498 and in re McAllister (C.C.Md.), 51 Fed. 282. 8 Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wallace 123, and Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wallace 148. 5 5 Howard 504. 135 U.S. roo.majority of the court were of the opinion that: " Whenever a particular power of the general government is one which must necessarily be exercised by it, and Congress remains silent, this is not only not a concession that the powers reserved by the states may be exerted as if the specific power had not been elsewhere reposed, but, on the contrary, the only legitimate conclusion is that the general government intended that power should not be affirmatively exercised, and that the action of the states cannot be permitted to effect that which would be incompatible with such intention. Hence, inasmuch as inter-state commerce, consisting in the transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of commodities, is national in its character and must be governed by a uniform system, so long as Congress does not pass any law to regulate it, or allowing the states so to do, it thereby indicates its will that such commerce shall be free and untrammelled." The opinion of Chief Justice Taney in Pierce v. New Hampshire was therefore in part overruled and the Iowa law in so far as it applied to the sale in the original packages of liquors shipped in from another state was pronounced unconstitutional. As a consequence of this decision, Congress, in 189o, passed the Wilson Act providing that all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any state or Territory for use, consumption, sale or storage therein should, even though in the original packages, be subject to the police laws of the State or Territory to the same extent as those produced within the state or Territory. Even with this act, however, a state is not permitted to interfere with an interstate shipment of liquor direct to the consumer?What constitutes an original package was the principal question in Austin v. Tennessee' which was decided in November 'goo. The general assembly of Tennessee had in this case made it a misdemeanour for any party to sell or to bring into the state for selling or giving away any cigarettes. The defendant had purchased at Durham, North Carolina, a quantity of cigarettes. They were packed in pasteboard boxes containing ten cigarettes each. The boxes were then placed in an open basket and in this manner the cigarettes were delivered at the defendant's place of business in Tennessee where he sold a package without breaking it. The court decided against the defendant because it held that the manner of transportation was evidently for the purpose of evading the state law and that the boxes were not original packages within the meaning of the Federal law, and in this connexion it observed that " The whole theory of the exemption of the original package from the operation of the state laws is based upon the idea that the property is imported in the ordinary form in which, from time to time immemorial, foreign goods have been brought into the country. These have gone at once into the hands of the wholesale dealers, who have been in the habit of breaking the package and distributing their contents among the several retail dealers throughout the state. It was with reference to this method of doing business that the doctrine of the exemption of the original package grew up. " In the case of Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
See J. B. Uhle, " The Law Governing an Original Package," in The American Law Register, vol. xxix. (Philadelphia, 189o) ; Shackelford Miller, " The Latest Phase of the Original Package Doctrine," and M. M. Townley, " What is the Original Package Doctrine?" both in The American Law Review, vol. xxxv. (St Louis, 1901); also F. H. Cooke, The Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution (New York
' See Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Company, 170 U.S. 438. 8 179 U.S. 343. 171 U.S. I. End of Article: ORIGINAL PACKAGE If you wish, you can link directly to this article.
<a href="http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/Encyclopedia/ORC_PAI/ORIGINAL_PACKAGE.html"> ORIGINAL PACKAGE </a> |
|
|
(Previous) ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES |
(Next) ORIHUELA |
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries, P.O. Box 70696, Pasadena, CA 91117JCSM is a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization. Copyright © 1997-present. |
Free & Cheap Cell
Phones |
Cheap Long Distance
Phone Service Carriers |
Talk America Local Phone Service
|
Ztel & MCI - Unlimited Long Distance
Compare
Cell Phone Plans & Companies |
International Calling Cards & Prepaid Phone Cards |
Voice Over IP Broadband Internet Phone
Service | Wireless
Phone Plans & Cheap Cell Phones
|
_____________________________________________________________________________
