Red "C" Oil Manufacturing Co. v. Board of Agriculture

222 U.S. 380, 32 S. Ct. 152, 56 L. Ed. 240, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2189

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: January 9, 1912
• Docket: 141
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice White,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

In view of the full reference to and the review of decided cases made by the district judge in the opinion by him delivered, we content ourselves with a comparatively brief discussion of the questions pressed at bar.

These all come to two propositions, which are. thus stated by counsel:

“1. That the North Carolina Oil Inspection Act is unconstitutional and void in that, under the guise of exercising a police power, the General Assembly of North Carolina is really attempting to impose a revenue tax upon interstate commerce.

“2. That the said inspection act is unconstitutional, in that the General Assembly of North Carolina has attempted to delegate to the Board of Agriculture legislative powers.”

As to the first proposition, we append in the margin a clear and adequate summary of the act made by the judge below (p. 696): 1

The bill, as we have stated, was filed when the statute had been in force but two days and when of necessity the result of its operations was conjectural. We are asked now to hold that, although the General Assembly declared in the statute that the charge -or tax authorized to be imposed was made “for. the purpose of defraying the expenses connected with the inspection, testing and analyzing of oils in this State,” the real purpose of the legislature was to levy a tax for revenue in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Reading the statute as an entirety, or in connection with the supplemental legislation of March 9, 1909, we find no adequate reason for imputing to the General Assembly of North Carolina an attempt to do one thing under the guise or pretense of doing another. The mere designation of the exaction as a tax is not sufficient to warrant the deduction that the charge authorized for the inspection was not one really for such purpose. We cannot lightly attribute improper motives to the law-making power. Florida &c. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471; Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246. Putting out of view, therefore, questions of motive, two subsidiary contentions remain, viz., a, that oil is not a proper subject of inspection; and b, that the tax in question is so excessive on its face as to be unconstitutional. The conceded fact that in thirty-five States of the Union oil inspection laws are in force is sufficient to adversely dispose of the first of these contentions. As stated by the court below (p. 705):

“ While there is much diversity of opinion in respect to the danger of explosion from the use of kerosené oil and of the power to ascertain its ilhiminating capacity, it is evident that the question has not so far passed beyond the domain of debate, that the Legislature may not subject it to reasonable inspection before permitting its sale in the State. The court cannot say that sueh a law has no reasonable relation to the public safety or welfare.”

The contention that the tax is so exéessive on its face as to conclusively evidence the unconstitutionality of the burden, if imposed as a mere inspection charge, is, we think, also without merit. Prima facie the charge must be deemed to be reasonable. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419. Again, as said by the court below (p. 710):

“It appears from an examination of the various oil inspection laws in force in the United States that the charges for inspection vary from one-half to one and one-half cents per gallon, and that in States wherein popu-. lation and other conditions are similar to those in this State the charge is about the same as that fixed by the act.”

Looking at the elements which may have possibly entered into the calculation of the General Assembly as to what would be a reasonable inspection charge, we cannot, to quote from the opinion in the Patapsco Guano Case, Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 354, “conclude that the charge is so seriously in excess of what is necessary for the objects designed to be effected, as to justify the imputation of bad faith and change the character of the act.”

In disposing of the.contention just stated we are not at liberty to travél outside of the record and take judicial notice of the operation of the act since the transcript of record was filed in this court. We here reiterate what was said in the case last cited (p. 354): “If the receipts are found to average largely.more than enoúgh to pay the expenses, the presumption would be that the legislature would moderate the charge.” If the trial made of the act establishes the fact to be as asserted, that the exaction in question is excessive, the presumption is that in the orderly conduct of the . public business of the State the necessary correction will be made to cause the act . to conform to the authority possessed, which is to impose a fee solely to recompense the State for the expenses properly incurred in enforcing the authorized inspection. What relief should be awarded in the event the legislature of North Carolina failed in its positive duty in this particular is not a question open for consideration upon this record, as no such failure of duty on the part of the legislature had occurred or could possibly have happened when this suit was commenced, a few days after the passage of the act.

The remaining contention is that the act is repup' > ant to the state constitution because it attempts to delegate to the Board of Agriculture the exercise of legislative powers. The legislative requirement was that the illuminating oils furnished in North Carolina should be safe, pure and afford a satisfactory light, and it was left to the Board of Agriculture to determine what oils would measure up to these standards. We think a sufficient primary standard was established, and that the claim that legislative powers were delegated is. untenable. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 492; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506.

We have not attempted to enumerate the objections urged against the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Agriculture. The court below was clearly right when it observed that if, as the complainant alleged, the standard of safety fixed by the board was unreasonably high, or the method of testing oil unsatisfactory and not such as was in . general use, or the regulations in other respects were unjust or oppressive, it should seek relief by applying to the Board of Agriculture to modify them. A iaw cannot be declared invalid because in the opinion of the court it does not accord with sound policy. The appeal for redress in such, case must be to the law-making power.

Decree affirmed without -prejudice.

1 The-act provides:

Sec. 1. “That all kerosene, or other illuminating-oils, sold or offered for sale in this State, shall be subject to inspection and test to determine the safety and value for illuminating purposes.” All manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers, before selling or offering for sale, in this State, any kerosene, or other oil, for illuminating purposes, are required to file with the Commissioner of Agriculture a statement, showing that they desire to do business in the State, and to furnish the name or brand of the ■oil, or oils, which they'.desire to sell, with the names and address of the manufacturer, and that such oil will comply with the requirements of the law.

Sec. 2. Power is conferred upon the Commissioner of Agriculture to collect samples of any .illuminating oil offered for sale in this State and have the same analyzed. The inspection of oil, as authorized by the act, is to be under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, which is authorized “to make all necessary rules and regulations for the inspection of such oil and to adopt standards.of safety, purity or absence from objectionable substances and luminosity when not in conflict with this act, and which they may deem necessary to provide the people of the State with satisfactory illuminating oil.”

The Board of Agriculture is required to appoint oil inspectors not exceeding, in number, one from each Congressional District, whose compensation shall not exceed one thousand dollars a year and ex penses. They are given power to examine all barrels, tanks, or other vessels containing kerosene or other illuminating oils, to see that they are properly tagged, and shall, as directed, collect and test samples of oil offered for sale in different sections of the State, and, when instructed, collect and send samples to the Department of Agriculture for examination.

Sec. 3. “For the purpose of defraying the expenses connécted with the inspection, testing and analyzing oils in this State there shall be paid to the Commissioner a charge of one-half cent per gallon which' payment shall be made before delivery to agents, dealers or consumers in this State.” Provision is made for attaching to each barrel, tank, tank car, and other containers a tag or stamp to be furnished by the Commissioner of Agriculture showing that the tax has been paid. When oil is shipped in tank cars or other large containers, the manufacturer or jobber shall give notice to the Commissioner of Agriculture of every shipment, with the name and'address Of the person, company' or corporation to whom it is sent, and the number of gallons, on the day the shipment is made.

Sec. 4. “All moneys received under the provisions of this act shall be paid into the State Treasury and kept as a distinct fund to be styled ‘The Oil Inspection Fund:’ All checks or orders in payment for tags or stamps shall be made payable to the State Treasurer. The Commissioner of Agriculture is authorized to draw out of said fund, upon Ms warrant, such sums as may be necessary to pay all expenses incurred in connection, with this act incMding salary to oil chemist, or chemists, cost of inspection, blanks,” etc.

Sec. 5. “The State Treasurer shall, on the first day of June and December of each year turn into the general fund of. the State all moneys of the oil fund in his hand in excess of the amount drawn out by the Commissioner of Agriculture for expenses.”

Sec. 6. The Commissioner of Agriculture is required to include in Ms report to the General Assembly an account of the operations and expenses under the act.

Sec. 7. Provides: that, whenever complaint is made to the Department of Agriculture in regard to the illuminating qualities of any oil sold m this State, the Commissioner shall cause a sample of said oil or oils complained of to be procured, and have the same thoroughly analyzed and tested as to safety and illuminating qualities. If such analysis or other tests shall show that the oil is either unsafe or of inferior illuminating quality, its sale shall be forbidden and report of the result or results shall be sent to the party making the complaint and to the manufacturer of such oil.

The remaining sections prescribe penalties for violation of the provisions of the law. The act went into effect July 1, 1909.