# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Texas Liquor Control Board v. Ammex Warehouse Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_1010%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 382 U.S. 977 ## Text INDEX OF CONTENTS Page p EE IO EET LT Lee TO FIST cp TE TEE i ee I oS. so nats be cae eee ees ii NS os ee ee eee ee ae 1 ee es ca rr ica ics ath 2 “ee eae ne 8 I. Chronology ce ois Sh I Ria gaa ak a ee | oe 2 II. Statutory Provision Conferring Jurisdiction...... 3 Questions Presented for Review....................... 3 The Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved..... 6 I, ,The Texas Statute in Question.................. 6 II. Provisions Relied Upon by Petitioners........... 10 III. Provisions Upon the Basis of Which Texas Courts - Ruled the Statute in Question Unconstitutional... 12 IV. Other Statutes and Regulations Involved......... 13 a Or TE CD. enc ai noo wil es own AE 14 Reasons Relied on For Allowance of Writ.............. 28 PD AE GI a a. since wiiinn sane nwassvdeeel 37 Certificate of Serwies: ... 02.005 Les saad. cece 38 Appendix (Separately Indexed)........................ 39 We ick iA IRIE 0 see et INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases ¢ Ammex Warehouse Company of San Ysidro, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage 19,21, 22, 28, Control for the State of California, 224 F. 25, 27, 28, 31, Supp. 546 (D.C., S.D.Cal., 1968) ..-........ $2, 33 Collins v. Yosemite Park Company, 304 USS. 518, 58 S.Ct. 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502 (1938)... 32 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the State of California, et al. v. Ammex Warehouse Company of Ysidro, Inc., 378 5, 13, 19, 21, U.S. 124, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12'L.Ed.2d 743..... 31, 32 Department.of Revenue v. James B. Beam Dis- tilling Company, 377 U.S. 341, 84 S.Ct. 1247, 12 L.Ed. 2d 862 (1964).................. 31 Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon-Voyage Liquor Cor- 5 poration, 377 U.S. 324, 84 S.Ct. 1293, 12 21 25 eS rr re ree > 31, 33 Idlewild Bon-Voyage Liquor Corporation v. / Epstein, 212 F.Supp. 376 (D.C., S.D.N.Y., / ae ASSURE Rater 2k SG LS mln SRI Satcher a 15, 16, 20, 29, 31 J. F. Fitzgerald Construction Co. v. Pedersen, 824 U.S. 720, 65 S.Ct. 892, 89 L.Ed. 1316 Re ee teehee Ce ee 34 Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Calvert, 347 U.S. 157, 74 S.Ct. 396, 98 LEd. 588 & Stahl, 377 US. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 LEd2d 752 (1964)........... 0000... eee. 84 “4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Con’d) hal) Fee Page State of Alaska v. Artic Maid, et-al., 366 U.S. 199, 81 S.Ct. 929, 6\L. 227 (1961) .. 34 Texas Liquor Coptrl Baar al, Appellants v. Ammex W. pany, Inc., et al., Appellees, 384 S.W. 2d A Rae 2 eas } Ziffrin v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 182, 60 S.Ct. 163, oe See eer 31 = Constitutional Provisions Constitution of the United States, Article I, 4,12, 13,17, Section 8, Clause 2 and3................. 20, 33, 34 Constitution of the United States, Article VI, 4, 13, 18, sii RIE I ete aaa ere ote ee 20, 34 Constitution of the United States, Twenty-first 3, 10, 18, 19, Amendment, Section | 2 ei ey 20, 32, 33 Federal Statutes ee I I ni ec ere ae tans 14, 23, 24 19 U.S.C.A. 1555......... Pee ee ane reer ee oe 4, 13, 23 Hy ME I on oo cid dime wan cen akdn 4, 5, 18, 23, 24 e' a ee ne ee 3, 10, 19 EE SE ae eT ee 3, 11, 19 gin os Re Rf a er teat 3, 11, 19 CNS 65 5.206455 8c USé ri eres - 4,11 ay. Ws I i os 5 eu ab ccc uke nea ewes 3 49 U.S.C.A. 1002......... Bich Mee det 14 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Con’d) Page Federal Regulations Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 18, Section 18.1, CR 363. . 14 Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 19, Section 19.1, CR 379- ™ Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 19, Section 19.11, CR 386- ES Se a oy oe ee ee 13, 23, 24 Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 19, Section 19.13, CR 387- Ree BOS wre eae ber i 14, 23, 24 Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 252, Subpart B, § 252.11. . 14, 27 Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 252, Subpart B, § 252.40. . 14, 27 Texas Statutes Article 666-15, V.A.P.C. ...... GbE ess dias 15 Article 666-15(6), V-A.P.C. ................. 15 Article 667-15(7b), V.-A.P.C. ............... 4, 5, 6, 15, 18, 30 Article 666-288, VAPC.................... 15 ” a NO. ———— IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1965 Texas Liquor ConTROL BOARD, ET AL., Petitioners, Vv. AMMEX WAREHOUSE CoMPANY, INC.; ET AL., Respondents. From the Court of Civil Appeals for The Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas At Austin PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Petitioners, the Texas Liquor Control Board and Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Administrator of the Texas Liquor Control Act, respectfully request that this Court grant certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judi- cial District of Texas at Austin, affirming the judg- ment of the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, which held to be unconstitutional a statute amending the Texas Liquor Control Act. par THE OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas at Austin ‘is styled Texas Liquor Control Board, et al., Appel- lants v. Ammex Warehouse Company, Inc., et al., Ap- pellees, and is reported, 384 S.W.2d 768, and is ap- pended hereto, Appendix, p. 41, et seq. The final judgment of the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, which formed the basis of the appellate opinion noted above was numbered and styled Consolidated Cause No. 132,400, Ammex Warehouse Company, Inc., et al. v. Texas Liquor Control Board, et al., and is appended hereto, Appendix, p. 53, et seq. THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH -JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS INVOKED L CHRONOLOGY The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas from which appeal is here taken is dated December 2, 1964 (Ap- pendix, p. 41, et seq.). Appellants’ motion for rehearing, duly filed on De- cember 9, 1964, was by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District overruled on De- cember 16, 1964, as certified by the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals. Application for Writ of Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas was timely filed on January 15, 1965, as certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. pa — ‘ > The Supreme Court of the State of Texas refused the application for writ of error, with the notation “no reversible error,’’ on June 23, 1965, as certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. Motion for rehearing on the application for writ of error was by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas overruled on July 28, 1965, as certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. Il. STATUTORY PROVISION CONFERRING ’ \ JURISDICTION The jarisdiction of this Court is here sought under 28 U.S.C.A. 1257(3), which authorizes this Court to ex- ercise jurisdiction “‘by writ of certiorari, ... where the validity of a State statute is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant, to the Constitution ... or-laws of the United States.” QUESTIONS PRESENTED -FOR REVIEW The questions presented by this petition for certio- rari pertain to the right of the State of Texas under the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Wilson Act (27 U.S.C.A. 121), the Webb-Kenyon Act (27 U.S.C.A. 122), and the Fed- eral Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C.A. 201, et seq.). to regulate the business of selling, in less than wholesale quantities, alcoholic beverages, tax free, from United States Government Bonded Warehouses and the extent, if any, to which the Export-Import Clause Paes same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt there- from by reason of being introduced therein in orig- inal packages or otherwise.’’ —10— The Webb-Kenyon Act (27 U.S.C.A. 122) contains similar but even more specific state authorization. It reads: “The shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontigu- ous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the Unit- ed States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, Territory, or District of the United States or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which said spir- ituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intox- icating liquor is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any -Imanner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the juris- diction thereof, is hereby prohibited.” The Federal Alcohol Admini#tration Act (27 U.S8.C.A. 201, et seq.), in its entirety, recognizes the peculiar right of states to regulate all aspects of the alcoholic beverage industry conducted within the boun- daries of the states. Of particular significance here is that portion of the Act relating to the issuance of per- mits and reading (27 U.S.C.A. 204): : . (a) Who entitled thereto. The following persons . shall, on application therefor, be entitled to a basic permit: ‘*(1) Any person who, on May 25, 1935, held a basic permit as distiller, rectifier, wine producer. or importer issued by an agency of the Federal Government. —l1— ‘*(2) Any other person unless the Secretary of the Treasury finds (A) that such person (or in case of a corporation, any of its officers, directors, or principal stockholders) has, within five years prior to date of application, beén convicted of a felony under Federal or State law or has, within three years prior to date of application, been con- victed of a misdemeanor under any Federal Law relating to liquor, including the taxation thereof ; or (B) that such person is, by reason of his busi- ness experience, financial standing, or trade con- nections, not likely ‘o commence operations with- in a reasonable period or to maintain such opera- tions in conformity with Pederal Law; or (C) that the operations proposed to be conducted by such person are in violation of the law of the State in which they are to be conducted.”’ Ill. PROVISIONS UPON THE IS OF WHICH TEXAS COURTS RULED THE STATUTE IN QUESTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL The Texas statute has been held to be in violation of the Export-Import Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 2 and 3, and Article VI, Clause 2: ‘‘The Congress shall have Power To lay and col- lect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; © * * + =| v - ¢ Sotet pete mies pape ener te ee eS RN, ATA “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and “ among the several States, and wath 'the Indian Tribes ;’’ * + “This Constitution, and the Laws of the. United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ; - and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, un- der the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the J udges in every State ll be bound thereby, any Chi in the Constitution or Laws of any State’to the Contrary notwithstanding.” \ IV. nes .: OTHER STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ‘ INVOLVED _ f The Respondenf liquor sellers in Texas maintain . Class 2 and 8 United States Customs Bonded Ware- "houses authorized by 19 U.S.C.A. 1555 ahd 19 U.S.C.A. 1562 and subject to the provisions of the Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 19, ° Sections 19.1 and 19.11, CR. 379-381 and CR 386-387. The statutes and regulations are set, out in the Appen- tom dix, p. 57, et seq. Those selling liquor for export in New York and California, involved in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon-V oy- age Inquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324, 84 S.Ct. 1293, 12 L.Ed.2d 350 (1964), and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the State of California v. Am- mex Warehouse Company of San Y. sidro, Inc., 378 U.S. 124, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964), oper- ated from Class 6 United States Customs Bonded = Warehouses authorized under 19 U.S.C.A. 1311 and subject to the provisions of the Title 19, Code of Fed- eral Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 19, Sec- tion 19.13, CR 387-388. The statute and regulation are set out in the Appendix, p. 63, et seq. | The Texas statute in question, as noted above, au- thorizes permit holders ‘“‘in compliance with United States Customs Regulations,’’ to withdraw liquor from the warehouse and to deliver it to a common carrier for transportation to the country of export. The Texas statute, thus, incorporates not only the Federal stat- utes and regulations applicable to the type warehouse for which a liquor seller qualifies but also the ‘defini- tion of ‘‘common carrier”’ as set out in Title 19, Code of Federal ‘Regulations, Customs Regulations, Part 18, Section 18.1, CR 363, set out in the Appendix, p. 70, and Section (a), subsection (5) of 49 U.S.C.A. 1002, which is incorporated by reference in the Customs Reg- ulation definition and which is set out in the Appen- dix, p. 72. . | Respondent liquor sellers assert that the procedure: which they follow in Texas constitutes exportation of the liquor in compliance with Federal regulations. Pe- titioners dispute that contention upon the basis of the definition of ‘‘exportation,’’ Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 252, Exportation of Liquors, Sub- part B, § 252.11, quoted in Appendix, p. 74, and the specified ‘‘evidence of exportation,’’ Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 252, Exportation of Liquors, Subpart B, § 252.40, quoted in Appendix, p. 75. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The specific question in this case is the constitution- —14-- ality of Article 666-15(7b), Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code of the State of Texas (Acts 1963, 58th Leg., Ch. 108, p. 196, quoted in full above). The statute, as it shows on its face, is an amendment to the Texas Liquor Control Act. It establishes a permit for those engaged in selling liquor for export from United States Cus- toms Bonded Warehouses and provides for such busi- nesses regulations identical to or comparable with those applicable to all other aspects of the alcoholic bever- age industry in the State of Texas. The statute was enacted after the three-judge Federal court in Jdle- wild Bon-Voyage Liquor Corporation v. Epstein, 212 F.Supp. 376 (D.C., 8.D.N.Y., 1962), held that the State of New York could regulate but could not constitu- tionally prohibit a business similar to, but not identical with, those then being operated in Texas towns along the Mexican border. It had initially been the position of the State of Texas, as it was New York’s position in the reported case, that the state could absolutely prohibit tax-free retail sales of liquor ‘‘for export.”’ . Ammex Warehouse Company, Inc., a Respondent here, was the first of the ‘“‘export’’ sellers in Texas. Hal G. Ward, founder of the company (8.F. 7, 14, 81) began operations in Laredo in June, 1961 (S.F. 10), under a wholesaler’s permit provided in the Texas Liquor Control Act (Article 666-15(6), Vernon’s An- notated Penal Code). Such permits authorize expor- tation of liquor but only in wholesale quantities (Ar- ticles 666-15 and 666-23a, Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code). When it became apparent that Ammex was selling at retail, the Texas,Liquor Control Board can- celled the permit. “ Ammex appealed from the cancellation by filing suit = = ne, PS RE oe at we! SAR OS thin. SS gn ni cates Petia tow oe Ss against the Board, Cause No. 123,485 in the 53rd Dis- trict Court of Travis County (Tr. 344). At that time the Texas Liquor-Gontrol Act provided no permit ap- plicable to the type of operations being conducted by Ammex, and the trial court held that the Act could not constitutionally be applied to the business and issued. an injunction prohibiting the Liquor Control Board, its officers and employees from in any manner inter- fering with the operations of the liquor seller (Tr. 359). The Texas situation was, therefore, at that time comparable with that which existed in New York at the time of the Idlewild ease. The other liquor sellers who are Respondents here began operations after judg- ment was entered in the original Texas Ammex case (Tr. 16, 344). Under those circumstances, the Texas Legislature accepted as correct the views expressed by the three- judge Federal court in New York and drafted the statute here in question to conform precisely with the operations which the Federal Court had held to be a legitimate business. Thereafter this Court, in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon-Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 304, 84 S.Ct. 1293, 12 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1964), affirmed the lower Court’s decision, also limiting its holding to the fact that New York was seeking absolutely to pro- hibit—not to regulate. — Before this Court’s decision in the Idlewil@ case and before the effective date of the Texas statute, Re- spondents, seven firms who at that time were operat- ing, in the six major Texas towns along the Mexican berder, seventeen liquor selling establishments’ of _the 1Respondents are (1) Ammex Warehouse Company, Inc., operating seven sales establishments, two in Brownsville, two precise type to which the statute was designed to apply, challenged the constitutionality of the statute, taking the position, again in the 58rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, that the State of Texas is completely lacking in power to regulate or control their businesses im any manner whatsoever.’ Federal questions were raised by all parties at the earliest possible opportunity. The Original Petition of Ammex Warehouse Company, Inc., the first of those who are Respondents here to file a suit attacking the validity of the statute, alleges in part (Tr. 6): “*, .. The Twenty-first Amendment to the Consti- tution does not provide the State of Texas with the power it has attempted to assert over the busi- in Laredo, and one each in Hidalgo, Eagle Pass and El Paso; (2) Halem Ayoub and Sam Wardy, partners doing business 3) Yew by orn dg eg wt gprs in El Paso; icente Garza, Jr., orge Garza, partners doing busi- neon Beenie aa Tae oe sales establishments in 4) Albert Anzaldua, an in- *The case originated as five separate but substantially iden- tical suits filed oll'behalf of the various liquor selling estat lishments. Each petition sought declaratory judgment holding the statute titutional and permanent injunction pro- hibiting the T. Liquor Control Board, its Administrator, agents, and employees from enforcing or attempting to en- force the new law. Separate temporary injunctions were is- sued (Tr. 185, 189, 219, 223), but the five cases were formally consoliated for trial on the merits (Tr. 290). a ian ness of Plaintiff by said House Bill 782, since the liquor handled ‘2g Plaintiff is not liquor which merely travels in interstate commerce, but all liq- uor handled by Plaintiff is, from beginning to end, in the stream of foreign commerce and is not in- tended for consumption or use within the State of Texas. The export business of Plaintiff is sanc- tioned, controlled, and protected by the Export- Import Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. I, See. 8, Cl. 2) and the Federal Statutes and Regulations enacted pursuant thereto; the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitu- tion (Art. I, See. 8, Cl. 3), and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI, Cl. 2), and any attempt to enforce the Texas Liquor Control Act, as amended, is violative of the above clauses of the United States Constitu- eS Comparable allegations are contained in the orig- inal petitions filed in the same Court by the other liquor sellers who are Respondents here (Tr. 40-41, 54, 103, 133-134) and were repeated in all amended plead- ings by all parties who are Respondents here (Tr. 198, 246, 281, 283). The trial court adopted the contentions of the liquor sellers, ruling in final judgment in the consolidated cause that (Tr. 335 and Appendix, p. 54): "4 ‘“‘The Texas Liquor Control Act, as amended by House Bill 782, Acts of the 58th Leg. (1963) Ch. 108, p. 196, codified as Article 666-15(7b), Ver- _ non’s Annotated Penal Code, cannot constitution- ally be applied to Plaintiffs so long as they are engaged in the ‘in bond’ liquor business which is hereinafter described.’’ The judgment of the trial court further granted, in conformity with the prayer of the liquor sellers, an _ ae injunction permanently enjoining the Texas Liquor Control Board, its Administrator, agents, employees, — representatives, and successors in office ‘‘from in any- wise, directly or indirectly, interfering with, control- ling or regulating any or all of the plaintiffs [ Respond- ents here] . . . in the operation of their respective businesses anywhere in the State of Texas” (Tr. 335, Appendix, p. 55). As they had done as Defendants in the trial court, Petitioners as Appellants in the Court of Civil Ap- peals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas took the position that the statute in question, a regula- tory measure, is authorized by the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, _ the Wilson Act (27 U.S.C:A. 121), the Webb-Kenyon Act (27 U.S.C.A. 122), and the Federal Alcohol Ad- ministration Act (27 U.S.C.A. 201, et seq.). The brief in which those contentions are set out is a part of the record certified to by the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas and now before this Honorable Court (see es- pecially pp. 73-78, reproduced in Appendix, p. 76, et seq.). 2 After this Court’s decision in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon-V oyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324, 84 8.Ct. 1293, 12 L.Ed.2d 350 (1964), and per curiam opinion in Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the State of California v. Ammezx Warehouse Company of San Ysidro, Inc., 378 U.S. 124, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964), affirming Ammex Warehouse Company of San Ysidro, Inc. v. Department of Alco- holic Beverage Control for the State of California, 224 F. Supp. 546 (D.C., S.D.Cal., 1963), became available, —_ OL SR Ah y Petitioners, in a reply brief submitted in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas (Appellants’ Reply to Appellees’ Brief, a copy of which certified to by the Clerk of that Court is now before this Honorable Court) contended, as they now contend as Petitioners here, that those decisions conclusively establish the right of the State of Texas to regulate the business of selling for export tax-free liquor from United States Government Customs Bonded Warehouses and, therefore, the validity of the Texas regulatory measure here in question. That statute, as noted above, ‘was drafted after the decision of the three-judge court in the Idlewild case and is quite obviously based upon the facts and the law as declared by that Court. The ‘‘export’’ liquor sellers, who were Appellees below and are Respondents here, emphasized the super- ficial similarities between their operations and those of the sellers in the New York and California cases and contended, as the Court of Civil Appeals noted (384 S.W.2d 768, at 770 and Appendix, p. 45), that this Court’s rulings in the two cases were “‘controlling and that the 21st Amendment to the.Constitution does not permit the State to regulate liquor passing through its territory under the supervision of the United States Bureau of Customs.’’ The Court of Civil Appeals adopted the Appellees” argument and held (384 S.W. 2d 768 at 772 and Appendix, p. 50): ‘“We believe that the Statute is in the face of the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, as set out in the Idlewild and California — cases, supra.”’ Quite obviously the parties here have drawn from - —) | this Court’s rulings diametrically opposite conclusions. Petitioners believe that this Court clearly authorized . State regulation. Respondents and the majority of the Austin Court of Civil Appeals apparently believe that any form of State regulation is prohibited. The con- curring opinion (384 S.W.2d 768 at 772 and Appen- dix, p. 51, et seq.) takes the position that the Legis- lature of the State of Texas has no authority upon the basis of existing conditions and facts before it to find a need for regulation and that regulation should be sustained only upon sworn testimony that a “‘signifi- cant quantity of liquors” sold by these ‘‘export”’ sell- ers had in fact been diverted for consumption in Texas. Such divergent interpretations of this Court’s ral- ings—particularly in a matter of the significance of the State’s right to regulate an aspect of the liquor industry—and the resulting need for clarification might alone be abundant reason for the grant of certiorari here. There are, however, a number of other facts mate- rial to consideration of the questions presented. Those facts are most plainly demonstrated by noting the dif- ferences between the facts in Texas and the New York and California situations which. were before this Court in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon-Voyage Liquor Corpor- atton, 377 U.S. 324, 84 S.Ct. 1293, 12 L.Ed.2d 350 (1964), and Department of Alcoholic Beverage Con- trol for the State of California v. Ammex Warehouse Company of San Ysidro, Inc., 378 U.S. 124, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 743 (1964), affirming, per curiam, Ammex Warehouse Company of San Ysidro, Ine. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the State of California, 224 F.Supp. 546 (1963). = er or proprietor of the warehouse, under supervision of the officer of the customs in charge of the same, at the expense of the owner or proprietor. The compen- sation of such officer of the customs and other customs employees appointed to supervise the receipt of mer- chandise into ary such warehouse and deliveries there- from shall be reimbursed to the Government by the proprietor of such warehouse. 19 U.S.C.A. 1562 Unless by special authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, no merchandise shall be withdrawn from bonded warehouse in less quantity than an entire bale, eask, box, or other package ; ; or, if in bulk, in the en- tire quantity imported or in a quantity not less than one ton weight. All merchandise so withdrawn shall be withdrawn in the original packages in which im- ported unless, upon the application of the importer, it appears to the collector that it is necessary to the safety or preservation of the merchandise to repack or transfer the same: Provided, That upon permission therefore being granted by the Secretary of the Treas- ury, and under customs supervision, at the expense of the proprietor, merchandise may be cleaned, sorted, repacked, or otherwise changed in condition, but not manufactured, in bonded warehouses established for that purpose and be withdrawn therefrom for expor- tation to a foreign country or for shipment to the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Mid- way Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Island, or the island of Guam, without payment of the duties, or for consumption, upon payment of the duties accruing thereon, in its condition and quantity, and at its weight, - = BT. A reer Dis bb het CN Ae alte A BEALE AHO Ate tes ae built at the time of withdrawal from warehouse, with sueh additions to or deductions from the final appraised value as may be necessary by reason of change in con- dition. The basis for the assessment of duties on such merchandise so withdrawn for consumption shall be the adjusted final appraised value, and if the rate of duty is based upon or regulated in any manner by the value of the merchandise, such rate shall be based up- on or regulated by such adjusted final appraised value. The scouring or carbonizing of wool shall not be con- sidered a process of manufacture within the provisions of this section. Under such regulations-as the Secre- tary of the Treasury shall prescribe, imported mer- chandise which has been entered and which has re- mained in continuous customs custody may be ma- nipulated in accordance with the provisions of this section under customs supervision and at the risk and expense of the consignee, but elsewhere than in a bond- ed warehouse, in cases where neither the protection of the revenue gor the proper conduct.of customs busi- ness requires that such manipulation be done in a bonded warehouse. DEFINITIONS OF CLASS 2 AND CLASS 8 WAREHOUSES FROM TITLE 19, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 19.1, CR 380-381 Class 2.—Importers’ private bonded warehouses used exclusively for the storage of merchandise be- longing or consigned to the proprietor thereof. A ware- house of class 4 or 5 may be bonded exclusively for the storage of‘ goods imported by the proprietor thereof, in which case it shall be known as a private bonded warehouse. ae, Ta Class 8.—Bonded warehouses established for the pur- pose of cleaning, sorting, repacking, or otherwise _ changing in condition, but not manufacturing, im- ported merchandise, under customs supervision and at the expense of the proprietor. — > MANIPULATION IN BONDED WAREHOUSES TITLE 19, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, CUSTOMS REGULATIONS, 19.11 CR 386-387 19.11 Manipulation in bonded warehouses and else- where.—(a) So far as applicable, the general provi- sions of the regulatiqns governing warehouses bonded for the storage of imported merchandise shall apply to bonded manipulation warehouses and to other des- ignaied places of manipulation. (b) Merchandise to be manipulated under section 062, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may be entered on customs Form 7502 and sent directly to a storage- manipulation warehouse. ° (¢) Merchandise entered. for warehouse may be transferred to a storage-manipulation warehouse; or merchandise entered for storage-manipulation ware- houses may be transferred after manipulation to the storage portion of the same warehouse, to another stor- age warehouse, or to a manufacturing warehouse of Class 6. ° (d) The application to manipulate, which shall be filed on customs Form 3499 with the collector having jurisdiction of the warehouse or other designated place of manipulation, shall describe the contemplated ma- nipulation in sufficient detail to enable the collector to determine whether the imported merchandise is to be cleaned, sorted, repacked, or otherwise changed in con- dition, but not manufactured, within the meaning of section 562, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. If the collector is satisfied that the merchandise is to be 80 manipulated, he may issue a permit on customs Form 3499, making any necessary modification in such form. Manipulation resulting in a change in condition of the ~~ = merchandise which will make it subject to a lower rate of duty or free of duty upon withdrawal for consump- tion, is not precluded ved the provisions of such section 562. (e) No merchandise shall be manipulated elsewhere than in a bonded warehouse unless the merchandise has been regularly entered for consumption or ware- house and is of a class entitled to the warehousing privilege under Section 557, Tariff Act of 1990, as cf) — OH pTiAneS WHER the proviaiona ef Para: ) of Tate eeetion, MARI pTIAted merehanidine Wy he Avedon maatpitated he@lire Wellidina weal (Gian where the callectar ta aatiafied that thie will net en danger the vevenne ar interfere with the efficient eon duct of customa business, The merchandise remaining in the warehouse shall be properly repacked after each manipulation, (g) Manipulated merchandise may be withdrawn under any form of withdrawal, but no withdrawal, shall be accepted for less than an entire repacked package. Each type of withdrawal filed shall contain a summary statement indicating the quantity in the Aner WHEAMEAWR fae @ the weit diaweal what ippn my ao 1 be Henidated fh AdcOANeS With section 16.0(e), (Sees. 562, 46 Stat. 743, 745, as amended; 19 UVS.0.A. 1556, 1562.) —~+62—— BELO: \ PME ES AMN FEDERAL STATUTE AND REGULATION UNDER WHICH NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA EXPORT LIQUOR SELLERS’ WAREHOUSES ARE CONDUCTED 19 U.S.C.A. 1311 nal-reventie tax, and intended for exportation without belt changed with duty, and without ha ah ite Teralreweniie atiainy) afficad Hhereta, alall, under aah Wrilatione aa the Beoretary of the Tyaaauew aay wonhe, tn onder to he ao MAnUMACtUREd and hyo and nares tT) — Wareliieen aid: thowe Kaown (leaiga ‘Treasury Regu lations as bonded warehouses, class aix; Provided, That the manufacture Of such articles shall first give satis- factory bonds for the faithful observance of all the provisions of law and of such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury: Provided further, That the manufacture of distilled spirits from grain, starch, molagses, or sugar, including all dilu- tions or mixtures of them or either of them, shall not » be permitted in such manufacturing warehouses. whall be Bhovatran, we wall be fatten fay HAW AMA Fe: hate Ran Wate He AE ERE PRApON vith hall be tet far Prat requirements relating to revente stampa. 8 No flour, manufactured in a bonded manufacturing —_,. warehouse from wheat imported after ninety days aft- er June 17, 1930, shall be withdrawn from such ware- house for exportation without payment of a duty on such imported wheat equal to any reduction in duty which by treaty will apply in respect of such flour in the country to which it is to be exported. Any materials used in the manufacture of such warehouse; but this privilege shall not be held to ap- ply to implements, machinery, or apparatus to be used in the construction or repair of any bonded manufac- turing warehouse or for the prosecution of the busi- ness carried on therein. Articles or materials received into such bonded man- waste derived from cleaning rice in bonded warehouses under the Act of March 24, 1874, ch: 65, 18 Stat. 24, in said bonded warehouses may be withdrawn for do- mestic consumption on the payment of duty equal to the duty which would be assessed and collected by law if such waste or by-products were imported from a foreign country: Provided, That all waste material may be destroyed under Government supervision. All labor performed and services rendered under provisions ehall be wader the supervision of & duly denignated offfeer of the custome and at the eepense WE The HAH Raetren, A oareful account ahall be Kept by the callectar af all merehandiae delivered hy him to bonded avai facturing warehouse, and a aworn return, ver ified by the customa officers in charge, shall be made’ by the manufacturer containing a detailed statement of all imported merchandise used by him in the manu- facture of exported articles. Before commencing business the proprietor of any manufacturing warehouse shall file with the Secretary of the Treasury a list of all the articles intended to be manufactured in such warehouse, and state the for- mula of manufacture and the names and quantities of the ingredients to be used therein, elieeey FARO AWE for Ure wale putpose of fmediate theretim - Provided, That cigats manufactured in whole of to- baeeo imported from any one country, made and man- ufactured in such bonded manufacturing warehouses, — 5... 0 may be withdrawn for home consumption upon the payment of the duties on such tobacco in its condition as imported under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, and the payment of the internal-revenue tax accruing on such cigars in their condition as withdrawn, and the boxes or pack- ages containing such cigars shall be stamped to indi- cate their character, origin of tobacco from which made, and place of manufacture. The provisions of section 3433 of the Revised Stat- “utes shall, so far as may be practicable, apply to any bonded manufacturing warehouse established under this chapter and to the merchandise conveyed therein. Distilled spirits and wines which are rectified in bonded manufacturing warehouses, class six, and dis- tilled spirits which are reduced in proof and bottled in such warehouses, shall be deemed to have been man- ufactured within the meaning of this section, and may be withdrawn as hereinbefore provided, and likewise for shipment in bond to Puerto Rico, subject to the provisions of this section, and under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, there to be withdrawn for consumption or be rewarehoused and subsequently withdrawn for consumption: Provid- ed, That upon withdrawal in Puerto Rico for eonsump- tion, the duties imposed by the customs laws of the United States shall be collected on all imported mer- chandise (in its condition as imported) and imported _ containers used in the manufacture and putting up of such spirits and wines in such warehouses: Provided further, That no internal-revenue tax shall be imposed on distilled spirits and wines rectified in class six ware- houses if such distilled spirits and wines are exported —66— . or shipped in accordance with the provisions of this section, and that no person rectifying distilled spirits or wines in such warehouses shall be subject by rea- son of such rectification to the payment of special tax as a rectifier. -MANUFACUTURING WAREHOUSES TITLE 19, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, CUSTOMS REGULATIONS, 19.13 CR 387-388 19.13 Requirements for establishment of warehouse. —(a) Buildings or parts of buildings and other en- closures may be designated as bonded manufacturing warehouses if the Bureau is satisfied that their loca- tion, construction, and arrangement afford adéquate protection to the revenue. Such warehouses shall be used solely and exclusively for the purpose for which they are bonded. The general provisions pertaining to warehouses for the storage of bonded merchandise shall, so far as relevant, apply to bonded manufactur- ing warehouses. (b) Application for the establishment of such a warehouse shall be made to the collector of customs for the port where the premises are situated, setting forth the size, construction, and location of the prem- ises, the manufacture proposed to be carried on, and the kinds of materials intended to be stored and used therein. (ce) The procedure outlined in section 19.2 with re« spect to the application to bond the premises and the execution of the bond shall be followed. (d) A list of all articles intended to be manufac- __§71— a ataalany: aie, Foe OS A al ORE eye re rx AEE eee ee ’ Sern eee oe tured in the warehouse shall be filed in duplicate with the collector of customs, who shall transmit one copy to the Bureau. Such list shall set forth the specific names under which the articles are to be exported and under which they will be known to the trade, and shall show the names of all the ingredients entering into the manufacture of such articles, with the quantities of such ingredients or materials as may be dutiable or taxable. (e) Proprietors of such warehouses are required to conform strictly to the formulas filed with the bond, subsequently, and in no instance shall an article be permitted to be manufactured in or withdrawn from the warehouse which does not contain all the ingre- dients and in the quantities specified in the formula for the manufacture of such article, or which contains any ingredient not specified in the formula. .(f) Manufactured articles shall be marked with the trade name of the goods and may be marked, in addi- tion, with the formulas and with such insignia or name as may be indicated or desired by the purchaser, if such additional.marking will in no manner conflict with the requirements of the formula or present or créate a false or misleading statement or impression. ’ (g) Each bonded manufacturing warehouse shall - have a portion ated from the remainder of the premises and 2d by customs locks to be used ex- clusively for the “ol of all imported merchandise, domestic spirits, or Other materials subject to internal- revenue tax transfe into such warehouse for man- ufacture. A like compartment shall be provided to be used exclusively for the storage of products manufac- tured in the warehouse. The premises shall be so se- in cured as to prevent any person from having access thereto in the absence of the customs warehouse officer in charge, and the goods stored therein shall be so arranged as to give all practicable convenience to such officer in making the required examination or taking samples for analysis. (sec. 311, 46 Stat. 691, as amend- ed; 19 U.S.C. 1311.) DEFINITION OF “COMMON CARRIER” AND REGULATIONS RELATING THERETO TITLE 19, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, . 18.1, CR 363-364 © 18.1 Carriers; application to bond.—(a) Merchan- dise to be transported from one port to another in the United States in bond, except as provided for in para- graph (b), shall be delivered to a common carrier bonded for that purpose, but such merchandise may be transported with the use of the facilities of other bonded or nonbonded carriers. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘common carrier’’ means a common carrier of merchandise owning or operating a rail- road, steamship, or other transportation line or route or a freight forwarder as defined in section 402 of part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1002(a) (5) ). (b) Pursuant to Public Resolution 198, of June 19, 1936, and subject to compliance with all other appli- cable provisions of this part, the collector of customs at New York, upon the request of the party in interest, may permit merchandise entered and examined for customs purposes to be transported in bond between the ports named in the resolution by bonded cartmen or lightermen duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of part 21, if the collector is satisfied that the transportation of such merchandise in this manner will not endanger the revenue. (ce) A common carrier desiring to receive merchan- dise for transportation in bond shall file with the col- lector of customs a bond on customs Form 3587 in a sum to be recommended by the collector, accompanied —I0— » by the fee of $45 prescribed by section 24.12, a certified extract of its charter showing that it is authorized to engage in common carriage, and a statement that it is operating or intends to operate as a common carrier and that it undertakes to carry for such as choose to employ it.and does not limit its carriage to specific individuals or firms. In addition to the foregoing a“ freight forwarder shall submit a certificate issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission showing that it is operating as a freight forwarder as defined in sec- tion 402 of part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act. The extract and statement need not be submitted in the case of railroad or steamship companies gener- ally mee be engaged in common carxiage. (d) In the case of motor carrier bonds submitted for oe the following shall be filed in addi- tion to the requirements mentioned above: (1) A detailed description of the equipment to be used, showing whether the trucks are open or closed and whether they can be secured with customs seals, the number of trucks operated, and whether such trucks are owned or leased by the proposed bonded motor ier, and, if leased, whether the trucks are operated by employees of the fessee or lessor. (2) A list of the lines or routes over which the prin- cipal operates or will operate, setting out the cities or towns at which the trucks stop or lay over en route and where and in whose custody the trucks remain ‘during such stops or lay-overs. a (8) A definite statement as to whether the principal transports merchandise accérding to schedule over each of the lines or routes named or performs carriage only when a shipment is secured for transportation. TI (4) A detailed description of the terminal facilities employed by the principal at the points of origin and destination shown on the list of lines or routes. (5) A statement showing that facilities are andl able for the segregation and safeguarding of the pack- ages designated by the collector for examination from a particular shipment until such packages are called for by the public store cartman and removed to the public stores for examination. (e) Canadian and Mexican common carriers by mo- tor vehicles may be bonded for the transportation of merchandise between two ports in Canada or Mezico through the United States. (See section 5.11.) (f) Common carrier bonds may be discontinued at any time by the Bureau or the collector of customs at the headquarters port where the bond is filed. Bonded carriers desiring to discontinue such bonds shall make application therefor to such collector. (Sec. 551, 46 Stat. 742, as amended; 49 Stat. 1538, 19 U.S.C. 1551, 1551a.) 49 US.C.A. 1002, SECTION (a), SUBSECTION (5) | INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN CUSTOMS DEFINITION OF “COMMON CARRIER” The term ‘“‘freight forwarder’? means any person which (otherwise than as a carrier subject to chapter 1, 8, or 12 of this title) holds itself out to the general public as a common carrier to transport or provide ° transportation of property, or any class or classes of — 9 property, for compensation, in interstate commerce, and which, in the ordinary and usual course of its un- dertaking, (A) assembles and consolidates or provides for assembling and consolidating shipments of such property, and performs or provides for the perform- ance of break-bulk and distributing operations with respect to such consolidated shipments, and (B) as- sumes responsibility for the transportation of such property from point of receipt to point of destination, and (C) utilizes, for the whole or any part of the trans- portation of such shipments, the services of a carrier or carriers subject to chapters 1, 8, or 12 of this title. Y DEFINITION OF EXPORTATION TITLE 26, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, EXPORTATION OF LIQUORS, SUBPART B, § 252,11 Keportation, A severance of goods from the mass of things he ta the United Mates with the ine eh oo of aniting them ta the mass of things helong: ing to some for if country, The — charander of any shipment shall he determined hy the intention with whieh it ‘a Hide, and ib asMiined an exporh Character otily when destined for vse in a foreign eourtitey, Hor the purpose of this part, shipmerts to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone shall be treated as exportations. Shipments to Kingman’s Reef, the Midway Islands, or Wake Island are not exportations within the mean- ing of this part. (48 Stat. 998-1003, as amended; 19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) EVIDENCE OF EXPORTATION TITLE 26, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, EXPORTATION OF LIQUORS, SUBPART B, 6 252,40 § 29240 Vvidence of exportation, ‘The exportation of any shipment may he evidenced iy (4) A copy of the export Will of lading (4 868,850) ; ov (i) A sopy of the railway expreas reowipt (4 959, B51) 5 oF (6) A copy of the air express receipt (§ 259.252) ; or | (d) A copy of the through bill of lading where ex- portation is to a contiguous foreign country (§ 252. 250) ; or (e) A certificate by the export carrier, as provided for in § 252.253. (72 Stat, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1362, 1380; 26 U.8,0, 5058, WD, HL, 5214, WH62)/ EXCERPT FROM BRIEF SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS IN COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, RAISING FEDERAL QUESTIONS (4) The federal gove has given to the broader regulatory powers aver ale lie heverages than over any other em of He, | Presumably because of his mistaken beliefa that Appellees are exporters’ and that they are operat: ing under procedures provided by federal law and customs regulations (both shown above to be errone- ous), the trial court refused to consider the applicabil- ity of the Twenty-First Amendment to the statute in . question. Even, however, if Appellees’ procedure were in accordance with Customs regulations and even if Appellees could properly be considered to be exporters « (neither proposition is admitted; both are specifically denied), the single fact that Appellees are dealing in aleoholie beverages might alone and in itself be suf: fieient to give the Mate of Texas the right ta regulate and control their Wusinewmes, Beotion 2 of the Twenty: Hire Amendinent read: “The transportation or importation inte any Mate, Territory, or ponmemmion of the United Mates for delivery or ie Therein of intoxicating liquors, im wemyen of the laws thereof, is hereby pro- State laws dealing with aleoholic beverages are, therefore, in effect incorporated by reference into the Constitution of the United States. States may regulate —i6— and control alcoholic beverages where they could not regulate or control any other item of commerce. The Webb-Kenyon Act (97 U.8.0.A. 122), was it- tended to be and is even broader than the Wilson Act. Originally passed on March 1, 1931 (37 Stat. 699), the Webb-Kenyon Act was re-enacted without change on August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 877). ‘ A leading case construing the two congressional en- actments is Clark Distilling Company v. Western Maryland Railway Company, 242 U.S. 311, 37 8.0t, 180, 61 L.Ed, 926 (1916), where the Court anid: “Reading the Webb-Kenyon Law in the fi ' tne vi the Wile ad te y (ire Pe rpg r4 “ +i we y w iis i extend w the te | mney ti ; fear, te Wine ‘ of the West Virginia law against shipment, re- ceipt, and possession to be applicable and control- ling irrespective of whether the state law did or did not prohibit the individual use of liquor. That such also was the embodied spirit of the Webb- Kenyon Act plainly appears, since, if that be not true, the coming into being of the act is wholly inexplicable.” At another point in its opinion the Court further explained : ... the Webb-Kenyon Act ... did not simply forbid the introduction of liquor into a state for a prohibited use, but took the protection of inter- state commerce away from all receipt and posses- sion of liquor prohibited by state law. ‘“‘The movement of liquor in interstate commerce and the receipt and possession and right to sell prohibited by the state law having been in express terms divested by the Webb-Kenyon Act of their interstate commerce character, it follows that if that act was within the power of Congress to adopt, there is no possible reason for holding that to en- force the prohibitions of the state law would con- fuct with the commerce clause of the Constitu- tion; ...”’ (5) The Twenty-first Amendment subordinated rights under the Commerce Clause to the pow- er of a state to control and regulate liquor traffic within: its borders. In State Board of Equalization of California v. Youngs Market Company, 299 U.S. 59, 57 S. Ct. 77, 81 L. Ed. 38 (1936), the Supreme Court placed upon the Twenty-first Amendment much the same construc- tion which had been given to the Webb-Kenyon Act. The Court said: = ‘‘The amendment which ‘prohibited’ the ‘trans- portation or importation’ of intoxicating liquors into any state ‘in violation of the laws thereof,’ abrogated the right to import free, so far as con- cerns intoxicating liquors. The words used are apt to confer upon the state the power to forbid all importations which do not comply with the con- ditions which it prescribes. The plaintiffs ask us to limit this broad command. They request us to construe the amendment as saying, in effect: The state may prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors provided it prohibits the manufacture and sale within its borders; but if it permits such man- ufacture and sale, it must let, imported liquors compete with the domestic on equal terms. To say that, would involve nota construction of jhe amendment, but a re-writing of it.’’ Similarly Mr. Justice Frankfurter, in a concurring opinion in United States v. Frankfurt Distilleries, 324 . US. 293, 65 S.Ct. 661, 89 L.Ed. 951 (1945), pointed out: ‘“‘The Twenty-First amendment made a funda- mental change, as-to control of the liquor traffic, in the constitutional relations between the States and national authority. Before that Amendment —disregarding the interlude of the Eighteenth Amendment—aleohol was for constitutional pur- poses treated in the abstract as an article of com- merce just like peanuts and potatoes. As a result, the power of the States to control the liquor traf- fie was subordinated to the right of free trade across state lines as embodied in the Commerce Clause. The Twenty-first Amendment reversed this legal situation by subordinating rights under the Commerce Clause to the power of a State to con- trol, and to control effectively, the traffic in liquor within its borders.”’ —9— At another point in the same opinion it is further explained that: ‘*As a matter of constitutional law, the result of ¢ the Twenty-first Amendment is that a State may erect any barrier it pleases to the entry of intoxi- cating liquors. Its barrier may be low, high, or in- surmountable. Of course, if a State chooses not to exercise the power given it by the Twenty-first Amendment and to continue to treat intoxicating liquors like other articles, the operation of the Commerce Clause continues . . . the ,Commerce Clause is subordinate to the exercise of state pow- er under the Twenty-first Amendment, .. .”’ To the same effect see Ziffrin v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 123, 60 S.Ct. 163, 84 L.Ed. 128 (1939) ; Carter v. Com- monwealth of Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 64 S.Ct. 464, 88 L.Ed. 605 (1944); State of Georgia v. Wenger, 94 F.Supp. 976 (D.C. Ill, 1951), affirmed 187 F.2d 285, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 822, 72 S.Ct. 41, 96 L.Ed. 621, rehearing denied 342 U.S. 874, 72 S.Ct. 105, 96 L.Ed. 657. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_1010%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.