Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

what only is here involved, its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The principles contended for by us have been recognized and upheld in a number of cases in Iowa arising under this very law. Niles v. Fries, 35 Iowa, 41; Becker v. Betten, 39 Iowa, 668. It is claimed, however, that the State may absolutely prohibit the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and that it may, therefore, do anything which is less than such absolute prohibition. That is to say, the State may prohibit all commerce in alcohol, domestic and external; it may, therefore, prohibit any part of such commerce, either the domestic or the external.

We have no occasion to consider the claim of power to impose an absolute prohibition, because the consequence contended for by no means follows. There is no such thing as arbitrary power in our system of government. Every function possessed by the State was conferred by the people, to be exercised in their interest and for their welfare, and it is limited in its scope by the necessity for its exercise.

An absolute prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol involves a finding by the legislature that alcohol is wholly bad, and incapable of any good uses whatsoever. Such a prohibition being imposed, and in such a view, it may be that no exception could be claimed against it. That question is not in the case, and so we need not discuss it.

A prohibition upon the manufacture and sale of alcohol only for certain uses, involves a legislative finding that so far as not prohibited alcohol is beneficial, and hurtful alone when applied to the prohibited uses. This legislative finding is conclusive until reversed, and is binding upon the legislature itself; and it cannot by sheer force of authority do aught that is inconsistent therewith. This finding indicates the limits of the legislative power over alcohol, because it indicates the extent to which alcohol is hurtful to the State. To prohibit its manufacture, sale, or use beyond the requirements of the public welfare, is arbitrary and absurd, quite as much so as would be a like prohibition against the growing of corn or other staple production of the State. What we are contending for was the very point of the decision in Preston v. Drew, 33 Maine, 558; S. C. 54 Am. Dec. 639.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

We again invite comparison with the limitations upon the taxing power of the States. These were carefully considered in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. Chief Justice Marshall there said:

"It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which government may choose to carry it.

.

"The people of a State, therefore, give to their government a right of taxing themselves and their property, and as the exigencies of government cannot be limited, they prescribe no limits to the exercise of this right.

"It may be objected to this definition, that the power of taxation'is not confined to the people and property of a State. It may be exercised upon every object brought within its jurisdiction. This is true. But to what source do we trace this right? It is obvious that it is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident." See also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35.

No more comprehensive scope than this has ever been assigned to the police power. The power to tax implies the power to destroy, as does the power to regulate the power to prohibit; but the State cannot be permitted to exercise these powers, or either of them, to the destruction of, or interference with interests confided exclusively to the care of the national authority. See also Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; Kansas v. Saunders, 19 Kansas, 127.

It is claimed that even if alcohol may, after it is manufactured, be freely exported, nevertheless the manufacture for such exportation may be prohibited, because that is a purely domestic process, begun and completed within the State, and therefore subject to its authority.

That manufactures may per se be the subject of regulation, nobody denies. But the reason for such regulation wherever it has been attempted is obvious. There may be, incident to the process, noxious smells, and the generation of poisonous gases, as in the case of rendering and fertilizing establishments.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

There may be danger of fire or explosion, as in the manufacture of burning fluids or explosive powders. In all these cases the provisions of the law are adapted to reducing the peculiar perils of the trade to a minimum.

The state court say that the evils flowing from intoxicating liquor arise wholly from its use as a beverage. As the law attempts not directly to inhibit that use, but indirectly by inhibiting the sale for such use, we may say that it is the sale alone which the law has in view. From that all the apprehended evils flow, and the sole reason for imposing any restrictions upon the manufacture is, that all manufacture is for purpose of sale, and carries with it the right of sale, and therefore a limitation is imposed upon it correspondent with that upon the sale. The commerce and the manufacture stand upon the same footing. Wherever commerce is lawful, manufacture to supply that commerce is also lawful.

From all the legislation of all the States, and from all the adjudication upon such legislation by the courts, we challenge the citation of another instance wherein the limitations upon the production of an article which might be hurtful in use, were broader than the limitations on the sale.

Under whatever class of regulations the manufacture may fall, conforming to them, it may be carried on to whatever extent the requirements of lawful commerce may justify, and any regulation in denial or limitation of that right, is a regulation, not of manufacture, but of commerce, and must be considered in that view.

Granting therefore that the State did intend a limitation upon the manufacture of alcohol, considered merely as an industrial process, it would have no authority to effect that limitation by a restriction to manufacture for domestic uses.

The object of all labor is to supply the wants of the laborer. In civilized society, however, labor alone cannot accomplish this object. There must be exchange of the products of labor. Commerce is industry. It is in every just sense a part of the purpose and process of production. The commodity must not only be made, but it must be brought to the consumer, and the cost of this is added to the price paid by the consumer for the

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

commodity. So, too, industry, save that limited amount of labor which in the very performance gratifies an ultimate want, is commerce. It is the prospect of exchange that incites to labor and determines its direction and extent. Commerce and industry are thus essential parts of one great plan. The ligament that binds them together is vital to each. What affects the one, affects the other. Nevertheless, regulations that go to the mere modes or processes of industry have but an incidental effect upon commerce, and the power to make them, in so many cases vitally essential to the welfare of their people, was not withdrawn from the States. But regulations that in terms limit the purposes for which and the markets in which the products of labor may be offered in exchange are commercial regulations, and it is a mere quibble to speak of them as anything else. Railroad Co. v. Husen, supra; Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, supra; Almy v. California, supra; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Welton v. Missouri, supra; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, supra.

These cases establish that a regulation of industry in its relation to commerce is a commercial regulation and is to be so considered, no matter by what indirection it is imposed. That the State is not restrained from making such regulations by the Fourteenth Article of Amendment may be true, but that is nothing to our present purpose, which is to determine the effect of the commercial clause.

The proposition must be maintained broadly that the State may by limitations imposed upon the commercial purposes for which production is carried on, effect the entire destruction of its external commerce, or the law here in question must be limited to its domestic traffic. We are concerned to know if a power exists and not whether it has been reasonably exercised. Authority is removed above the necessity of giving reasons and needs not even to resort to Falstaff's shift of declining to give them on compulsion.

Counsel also argued as a second point that the statute contravenes the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution; but, as the opinion of the court treats this question as

Opinion of the Court.

settled, this portion of the argument is omitted. Indeed it has been necessary to curtail and condense the argument on the first point.

Mr. C. C. Cole and Mr. John S. Runnells, for defendants in error, submitted on their brief.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, having stated the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The Supreme Court of Iowa, in its opinion, a copy of which, duly authenticated, is found in the record, having been transmitted according to our 8th Rule of Practice, held the sections in question to mean: (1) That foreign intoxicating liquors might be imported into the State, and there kept for sale by the importer, in the original packages (or for transportation in such packages and sale beyond the limits of the State); (2) That intoxicating liquors might be manufactured and sold within the State for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes, but for no other-not even for the purpose of transportation beyond the limits of the State; (3) That the statute thus construed raised no conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and was therefore valid.

As the record presents none of the exceptional conditions which sometimes impel this court to disregard inadmissible constructions given by State courts to even their own State statutes and State constitutions, we shall adopt the construction of the statute of Iowa under consideration, which has been given it by the Supreme Court of that State.

The questions then, for this court to determine are: (1) Does the statute as thus construed conflict with Section 8, Article 1, of the Constitution of the United States by undertaking to regulate commerce between the States; and (2) Does it conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to that Constitution by depriving the owners of the distillery of their property therein without "due process of law." All of the assignments of error offered are but variant statements of one or the other of these two propositions.

The second of the propositions has been disposed of by this