Case Title: State v. Rockdale Associates, Inc.

Citation: 218 A.2d 718

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1966-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
218 A.2d 718 (1966) STATE of Vermont v. ROCKDALE ASSOCIATES, INC. No. 1190. Supreme Court of Vermont. Windham. April 5, 1966. John P. Connarn, Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for plaintiff. Thomas P. Salmon, John A. Lowery, Bellows Falls, for defendant. Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ. SMITH, Justice. An original information was brought before the Windham County Court on October 5, 1965 alleging that "Rockdale Associates, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, registered to do business in the State of Vermont, with a place of business in Westminster, in the County of Windham, did then and there, between twelve o'clock Saturday night, August 21, 1965, and twelve o'clock Sunday night, August 22, 1965, conduct a secular business in violation of Title 13, V.S.A. 3301, by then and there selling merchandise, to wit, one nightgown." The defendant was arraigned on October 6, 1965 on the aforesaid information and entered a plea of "Not Guilty." *719 The statute, which defendant is alleged to have violated is Title 13 V.S.A. § 3301 entitled "Sunday Business and Entertainment" and is quoted below: The States Attorney and the defendant requested the Windham County Court to pass the cause to this Court for determination of certain questions of law, before final judgment, upon a stipulated statement of facts, in accordance with the provisions of 12 V.S. A. § 2386. The request was granted and four questions have been certified to this Court by the Windham County Court for *720 our determination before the entry of judgment below: Before considering any of the questions of law certified to us for our determination we must first determine what question, or questions, are raised by the substance of the proceedings below that are pertinent and inevitable in the disposition of the case presented. The information charges the defendant with selling one nightgown in that period of time between midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday. The agreed statement of facts states that the defendant sells "nonlocally manufactured products consisting of dry goods including wearing apparel." These facts, as well as the briefs of the parties, make it abundantly clear that defendant is charged with selling a nonlocally made product, but which product could legally have been sold if it had been made locally by virtue of 13 V.S.A. § 3301(a) (3). The defendant asserts that this provision of 13 V.S.A. § 3301 is unconstitutional by reason of imposing an undue burden on Interstate Commerce in violation of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. This part of 13 V.S.A. § 3301 allows the sale of locally made products on one day of the week, but forbids the sale of similar products made elsewhere. We think it evident that "locally made" as used in the statute was intended by the Legislature to apply to products of Vermont manufacture only. The enactments of the General Assembly are applicable to only this State, and it is the welfare of the inhabitants of Vermont which is the concern of the state legislative body, and not that of other states or localities. This section of the Sunday Business and Entertainment law is not stated to be necessary for the health and safety of the people of Vermont, or their morals or necessary welfare, nor has the State so argued here. The plain purport of this section of the statute is to allow products of any nature, which are of local manufacture, to be sold exclusively on one day of the week within this State, but the sale of similar products, manufactured elsewhere than locally, is forbidden to be made. Whether or not so intended by the Legislature, the result is a protection of local manufacture against lawful *721 competition from other states for one day out of every seven. We, therefore, find that that part of 13 V.S.A. Sec. 3301(a) (3) reading "and locally made products may be sold and delivered," is in conflict with Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States and of no force and effect. It is apparent that our disposition of Question No. 1 which necessitates dismissal of the information, disposes of the case in hand. The other three questions certified, therefore, become abstract questions and need not be passed upon by us. Powers v. State Highway Board, supra. Chase v. Billings et al., supra.