Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/518/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-07-23 15:14:16
Document Index: 390452309

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 266', '§ 238', '§ 8', '§ 5', '§ 23', '§ 5', '§ 23', '§ 24', '§ 33', '§ 2', '§ 49']

Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co. :: 304 U.S. 518 (1938) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.
Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co. 304 U.S. 518 (1938)
U.S. Supreme CourtCollins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938)Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.No. 870Argued April 27, 28, 1938Decided May 31, 1938304 U.S. 518APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
According to the allegations of appellee's bill, appellants (defendants below) assert that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act applies within the Park, and that appellee is obligated to apply for permits for importation and Page 304 U. S. 522 sale; that appellee is subject to provisions of the Act prohibiting the issuance of importer's licenses to persons holding on-sale retail licenses, and vice versa; that appellee must pay fees and taxes imposed by the Act or be subject to penalties. Allegation was made that appellants threaten to seize beverages on or being transported to appellee's premises, demand rendition of reports and keeping of accounts, and threaten to institute civil and criminal proceedings against appellee for violation of the Act. On the other hand, appellee's allegations continue, the Secretary of the Interior, under the contract of lease, has approved prices making no allowance for taxes, and has instructed appellee to apply for no license and to pay no tax under the California Act, and that payment of such license fees or taxes will not be allowed as an operating expense under the contract.
Appellee brought this suit to restrain enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act within Yosemite Park on the theory that the Park is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The suit being one to restrain the enforcement of a State statute as applied to a specific situation, a three-judge court was convened under § 266 of the Judicial Code. The case was heard below upon motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court denied this motion. It granted a temporary injunction, 20 F.Supp. 1009, and later granted the final injunction prayed for by the complaint, restraining appellants (a) from entering upon appellee's premises, examining its records, seizing its beverages, or interfering with its importation and sales of beverage within the Park; (b) from interfering with shipments to appellee from outside the State; (c) from instituting any actions based on alleged violations of the Act with respect to the importation, possession, or sale of liquors; (d) from requiring reports thereon; (e) from enforcing the Act as to transactions within the Park. Page 304 U. S. 523
The District Court held that exclusive jurisdiction over the land was acquired again by the United States by virtue of the joint operation of three statutes: an 1891 California law ceding to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over such land as might be ceded to it; [Footnote 6] a 1905 California statute receding the Valley to the United States; [Footnote 7] and the Act of June 11, 1906, Page 304 U. S. 524 whereby Congress accepted the regrant and constituted the Valley a part of the Yosemite National Park. [Footnote 8] It further held, over appellants' objection, that there was no constitution obstacle to the acquisition by the United States of exclusive jurisdiction over land ceded to it for national park purposes. Jurisdiction over the Page 304 U. S. 525 rest of the Park, it concluded, was in the State until April 15, 1919, when it was offered to the national government (which had always retained the proprietary interest) in a statute saving to the State, inter alia, "the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said parks." [Footnote 9] Jurisdiction Page 304 U. S. 526 of the Park was assumed by the United States by Act of June 2, 1920, which referred to the state act, including its reservation of a power to tax. [Footnote 10] The District Court held this reservation inapplicable on the ground that the Alcoholic Beverage Act is chiefly regulatory in nature, rather than a revenue measure. Concluding that the United States had exclusive jurisdiction over the land in question, the District Court enjoined the enforcement of the state Act.
From this final decree of injunction, a direct appeal to this Court was taken under §§ 238 and 266 of the Judicial Code. Several questions were argued on the appeal. At this point, reference may be confined to appellants' contention that the United States has no Page 304 U. S. 527 power under the Constitution to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over land ceded to it by a state for national park purposes. Pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1937, the Court certified to the Attorney General that in this cause was drawn in question the constitutionality of the Acts of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 831 and June 2, 1920, 41 Stat. 731, accepting exclusive jurisdiction over the areas which embrace the Yosemite National Park. The United States, regarding appellee's argument as adequate, determined that it was not necessary to intervene.
Exclusive jurisdiction. By the Act of March 3, 1905, see note 7 California ceded and granted the United States title to the "Cleft" or "Gorge," known as Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove. As the Act of March 31, 1891, was then in force, see note 6 exclusive jurisdiction, with the exception of right to administer criminal laws and serve civil process, passed to the United States, on its acceptance unless the United States was without constitutional power to exercise it. By the Act of June 11, 1906, see note 8 the Congress accepted the cession and made the lands conveyed a part of the Yosemite National Park. The other lands composing the Park had been in the proprietorship of the national government since cession by Mexico. Exclusive jurisdiction of them passed from the United States to California by the admittance of that State to the Union. Except for certain rights expressly reserved, exclusive jurisdiction of these lands was granted to the United States by the Act of April 15, 1919, see note 9 and accepted by the Congress on June 2, 1920, see note 10 As this Act granted exclusive jurisdiction over all "territory which is now or may hereafter be included in . . . Yosemite National Park," the language of the cession and acceptance is apt to determine exclusive jurisdiction, with the explicit reservations, of the Gorge also. Page 304 U. S. 528
The State urges the constitutional inability of the national government to accept exclusive jurisdiction of any land for purposes other than those specified in clause 17, § 8, Article 1 of the Constitution. [Footnote 13] This clause has not been strictly construed. This Court at this term has given full consideration to the constitutional power of Page 304 U. S. 529 the United States to acquire land under Clause 17 without taking exclusive jurisdiction. [Footnote 14] In that case, it was said:
On account of the regulatory phases of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of California, it is necessary to determine that question here. The United States has large bodies of public lands. These properties are used for Page 304 U. S. 530 forests, parks, ranges, wildlife sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes which are not covered by Clause 17. In Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington, 302 U. S. 186, we upheld in accordance with the arrangements of the State and National Government the right of the United States to acquire private property for use in "the reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands" and to hold its purchases subject to state jurisdiction. In other instances, it may be deemed important or desirable by the national government and the state government in which the particular property is located that exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the United States by cession or consent. No question is raised as to the authority to acquire land or provide for national parks. As the national government may, "by virtue of its sovereignty," acquire lands within the borders of states by eminent domain and without their consent, [Footnote 18] the respective sovereignties should be in a position to adjust their jurisdictions. There is no constitutional objection to such an adjustment of rights. It follows that jurisdiction less than exclusive may be granted the United States. The jurisdiction over the Yosemite National Park is exclusively in the United States except as reserved to California -- e.g., right to tax, by the Act of April 15, 1919, St.Cal.1919, p. 74. As there is no reservation of the right to control the sale or use of alcoholic beverages, such regulatory provisions as are found in the Act under consideration are unenforceable in the Park.
Interpretation of Reservations. The lower court, in interpreting the language of the Acts of grant and acceptance, was of the opinion that the saving of "the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property" was not sufficiently broad to justify the collection Page 304 U. S. 531 of fees for licenses under § 5 and sales under §§ 23 and 24 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. [Footnote 19] The retention of the right to charge license fees for fishing Page 304 U. S. 532 was considered an indication of abandonment of the right to enforce any other license fees, and, finally, the regulatory character of the California enactment was deemed to mark it as nonenforceable under the reservation of the right to tax.
As the respective acts of State and Nation were in the nature of a mutual declaration of rights, this is not an occasion for strict construction of a grant by a State limiting its taxing power. Without employing that rule, we are of the opinion that this language is sufficiently broad to cover excises on sales, [Footnote 20] but not the license fees Page 304 U. S. 533 provided for by this Act. The fact that the "right to fix and collect license fees for fishing in said parts" was reserved is not decisive. It may well be that the negotiators of the agreement considered such licenses regulatory in nature, and therefore requiring express exception from the agreement for exclusive jurisdiction, in addition to the tax exception.
(a) Licenses. As the California has in the area of the Yosemite National Park only the jurisdiction saved under the cession and acceptance acts of 1919 and 1920, it does not have the power to regulate the liquor traffic in the Park. Except as to this reserved jurisdiction, California "put that area beyond the field of operation of her laws." [Footnote 21] While the State is, under its reservation, the right to use means to force collection of the taxes saved, [Footnote 22] it seems clear that the licenses required by § 5 go beyond aids to the collection of taxes, and are truly regulatory in character. This is not a case where provisions requiring a license may be treated as separable from regulations applicable to those licensed. [Footnote 23] Here, the regulatory provisions appear in the form of conditions to be satisfied before a license may be granted. [Footnote 24] The provisions Page 304 U. S. 534 requiring licenses for the importation or sale of alcoholic beverages in the Park are invalid.
(b) Excise Taxes. A different conclusion obtains, however, with respect to the excise tax provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, laying a tax at a specified rate per unit sold, on beer, wine, and distilled spirits sold "in this State." The Park Company, seeking to bring the excise provisions of the Act within the principle stated above with respect to the license fee provisions, contends that, notwithstanding the separability clause, [Footnote 25] the taxing features cannot be separated from the regulatory features, and that "the Act does not even purport to tax persons not subject to licensing requirements." Thus, the argument is made that § 23 imposes an excise tax on beer and wine sold by an importer, and applies not to the Company, which sells beverages direct to consumers, but only to importers licensed under the Act, and restricted by their license to sales to retail licensees. Page 304 U. S. 535
Section 24 imposes an excise tax upon all distilled spirits "sold in this State by rectifiers or wholesalers." Appellee Company does not come within the statutory Page 304 U. S. 536 definition of either of these groups, [Footnote 28] but § 24 must be read in conjunction with § 33. Section 33 provides that the
XXI Amendment. The State makes the point that § 2 of the XXI Amendment [Footnote 30] gives it the right to regulate Page 304 U. S. 537 the importation of intoxicating liquors. Reliance for enforcement is placed upon §§ 49 and 49.2 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. [Footnote 31] The argument for this claim is bottomed upon our decision in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U. S. 59, where we held that a statute imposing a $500 license fee for importing and a $750 license fee for brewing beer did not violate Page 304 U. S. 538 the commerce clause or the equal protection clause, because the words of the XXI Amendment "are apt to confer upon the state the power to forbid all importations," and "the State may adopt a lesser degree of regulation than total prohibition" (pp. 299 U. S. 62-63). [Footnote 32] The lower court was of the opinion that, though the Amendment may have increased "the state's power to deal with the problem, . . . it did not increase its jurisdiction." With this conclusion we agree. As territorial jurisdiction over the Park was in the United States, the State could not legislate for the area merely on account of the XXI Amendment. [Footnote 33] There was no transportation into California "for delivery or use therein." The delivery and use is in the Park, and under a distinct sovereignty. Where exclusive jurisdiction is in the United States, without power in the State to regulate alcoholic beverages, the XXI Amendment is not applicable. [Footnote 34]
"from enforcing in any manner within the limits of Yosemite National Park, or in respect of transactions within said Park, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of the California. Page 304 U. S. 539 The final decree forbids entering upon the premises of complainant; seizing, impeding or interfering with any shipments to complainant in Yosemite National Park; from instituting any actions or proceedings in any court of law or equity for violations or alleged violations of said Alcoholic Beverage Control Act in respect of the importation, possession or sale in the Park; from requiring or demanding reports on the importation, possession or sale of said beverages; from enforcing in any manner within the limits of Yosemite National Park, or in respect of transactions within said Park, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of the California."
"* * * *" "Section 1. The State of California does hereby recede and regrant unto the United States of America, the "Cleft" or "Gorge" in the granite peak of the Sierra Nevada mountains, situated in the county of Mariposa, California, and the headwaters of the Merced river, and known as the Yosemite Valley, with its branches or spurs, granted unto the California in trust for public use, resort and recreation by the act of congress entitled "An act authorizing a grant to the State of California of the Yosemite Valley and of the land embracing the Mariposa Big Tree Grove,'" approved June 30th, 1864, and the State of California does hereby relinquish unto the United States of America and resign the trusts created and granted by the said act of congress." "* * * *" "Sec. 3. This act shall take effect from and after acceptance by the United States of America of the recessions and regrants herein made, thereby forever releasing the State of California from further cost of maintaining the said premises, the same to be held for all time by the United States of America for public use, resort, and recreation, and imposing on the United States of America the cost of maintaining the same as a national park. Provided, however, that the recession and regrant hereby made shall not affect vested rights and interests of third persons."
"* * * *" "Section 1. Exclusive jurisdiction shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States over and within all of the territory which is now or may hereafter be included in those several tracts of land in the State of California set aside and dedicated for park purposes by the United States as 'Yosemite national park,' 'Sequoia national park,' and 'General Grant national park,' respectively, saving, however, to the State of California the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid parks in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said state outside of said parks, and saving further to the said state the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises, and property on the lands included in said parks, and the right to fix and collect license fees for fishing in said parks, and saving also to the persons residing in any of said parks now or hereafter the right to vote at all elections held within the county or counties in which said parks are situate; provided, however, that jurisdiction shall not vest until the United States, through the proper officer, notifies the State of California that they assume police jurisdiction over said parks."
"* * * *" "(s) 'Wholesaler' means and includes every person other than a manufacturer or rectifier who is engaged in business as a jobber or wholesale merchant dealing in alcoholic beverages."