Petition for Rehearing — Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture of Cal.

fos ae iy ete pag,

8;

. . ak - ig “ ° * * nai

. Pa . . .

oth, . , Par . « °

. ad . ad ete y’: :

P SS lage ae | .

J re : ra , ‘ j .

® ;

A e o” ‘ aS . A

. ‘ ‘ . . .

° . . * \ °

s as oi “S, ° oomigotalt “*

s, “ahs « ‘ ‘ . ° oe .

. z e

’ EY ° >

go n®- Qe * oa

: - ad , -

» Py : 3 7 Ae . . 7 2,9 ‘

. ‘ e

. La a ee : * * °

= t,o So mene oN -

“ -: *%° 5 os .

soe j

se 4.7 " -

, 7 « ‘

- be .g

« Tes ‘

> ae "i

. - 5 - 9

e ° i ‘ =~ . e

— - . , @ 2

we euen ame pe «shane Cour Us

a ‘ed ¥ ‘53 ut

| : 1933

_IN THE eee |

suey:

~ Supreme Court of the United Silas ~

October Term, 1942.

“™ ‘7 NO. 275.

}®

, Paciré Coast Dairy, INc., a corporation,

: \ | oa Appellant,

oe ” oad ;

ENFORCEMB: NT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; C. J.

__ "Carey, Chief; E. E.-Brown, Auditor of the Bureau

of ‘Market Enforcement of the Department of Agri- ~

— Of the State of California,

eae ° ' Appellees.

PETITION FOR REHEARING.

—- : ' @

Ronexi W. Kenny,

~ Attoriie y General of the State of © alifornia;

» & :

W. R. AuGusTINE, — -

WALTER L, Bowers, |

Depities .Attorney General,

Counsel. for Appellees.

Pirker & Baird Company, Law Printers, Los Angeles .

; a"

F aN

om.

‘DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF CALI--

FORNIA; WiLtAM J: Cecit, Director of Agriculture -

of “the State of California; BurEAU .oF MARKET.

600 State Building, Los Angeles, -

2°

_ SUBJECT INDEX.

{ E ; : j . 1i ‘ a

United States v. Press. Publishing Co.

- *

Certificate of counsel. radia

- at . ed

Addenda <=

; 3

i

. 3 =

i *

e a

a .

4 ay

* .

y 4°

a

e “

ot ¢

“= o

rt he ° a a

° —— ay . / «

~ * ) -

Ay

eg \

i.

"or: * SSABLE-OF AUTHORITIES CITED."

ee ae Sr neck dae oe he laa ca Bios PAGE

eee Packers ; Assri. v. Commission, 294-U. S. 532: iq.:cuens 7

Buffington v. Day, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 113, 20 L. Ed. 122.2... 9»

Hoopeston Canning Co.. v. Pink, No: 358, October, 1942,

| Term, decided March i, 1943... Geko ak wk 6

ane Osborn y. Oalin, 310 U. BOCES 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15

Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control vaneecaes No, 399, Octo- —

ber Term, 1942..0sucneee 2,.3,.12; 14

People of Puerto Rico Vv. ‘Shell Company, 302 U. .e & ae

e , S. Ct. 167, 82 L. Ed. 235 rai a. 15

“° # Stewart & Co. v. Sadracula, 309 U. S. 94........ eae AS

\" Unitéd States v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec: Co., 297 Fed. $75... 7

“> United States v. Press Publishing Go., 219 U. S.1,.31-S, Ct.

iy 22, SSL. Ed. 65..... i ol, 15, 17

- . STATUTES.

| iItural: Code, ‘Sec. 472...cccccccceccsesscssseeee BEET RAOCN 4

,.Aigricultural Code, Sec, 4Z.ceccpcmcecv-cencenenenenenenannnanenenene 5

Agricultural Code, Sec. 736,3(a) (6). | seis 13

Agricultural Code, Sec. 736.3(a) (7) ceccnennstencrinenerarnvion 13

"Agricultural Code, Sec. 736.3(a) (8) CS ALE en

: “Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause. 17... pclinieisibonenes AO

‘ oe

je a a + »

F:

_ IN THE

| Supreme Court af the wont States a :

"October Term, 1942.

No. 275. - |

’ Paciric Coast Datry, INc., a corporation, .

- US. ie ete sci

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF. CALI- | |

rorNIA; WittiAm J. Ceci, Director of Agriculture

of the State of California; Bureau oF MARKET_

ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; C. J. -

Carty, Chief; E, E.. Brown, Auditor of the Bureau _

-_- Of Market Enforcement of the Department of ‘Agri

a culture of the State of California, | 2 ’

7s oe p Roe

es PETITION FOR REHEARING.

: Cialis ss des abe Geil ppellees and preserit this’

their ptition for a rehearing of the above entitled cause

and in support therepf respectfully show : + Aes ee

oe { ’ ° ic ; | . .

The State of California prohibits its licensed milk dis- t

tributors from ‘purchasing from producers, and from. -

processing, bottling and handling in designated marketing

areas in the State any milk that is sold or is to be sold -

~

ee ale

below .the State’s prescribed minimum prices. Violation

is made a ground for .action against the distributor’s

On March 1, 1943, the Supreme Court of the United

__ States, in an opinion handed down by -Mr. Justice Roberts,

__ Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Murphey. dis-

senting, decided that the State of California cannot con-

stitutionally - ‘take “ny. action against its licensed distribu- |

ot ‘tors for violation of this provision in those instances

where the sale is made by the distributor to the Federal

_. Government upon a Federal enclave within the State. The

_ decision, would apply to the same extent if the sue were

‘made to- any: party within- ‘sucha Federal enclave.

The decision in this case necessarily hinges upon a . dif-

ferentiation drawn between sales madé to the Federal -

- Government within the geographical boundaries of the

. State upon land, the jurisdiction over which has been

- . ceded by the State to the Federal Government, and upon

land over which the State retains its. jurisdiction. Other-

wise, the decision rendered the same day in Penn Dairies,

Inc, v. Mitk Control Commission, No. 399, October Term,

1942, would. govern. Sra aoe

At the outset we are strengthened. = he fect that some

members of this Court who supported the majority opin-

yore herein and dissented ‘in the Penn Dairies case, supra, .

| concurred wholeheartedly i in the equity of the State’s posi- —

‘tion, as. witness the statement ‘of Mr. Justice Black to

counsel for ‘the. State at the time of the oral argument:

, “I can see avery strong argument that: the

_-Army should not do this. I think most anyene can

recognize the force of the argtiment you. make,—~that

this is not right to go on and buy. ‘cheaper’ milk, :

cheaper than the regular price of’the State.” |

Unfortunately, in the California case the argument was

: directed. by the Court almost wholly and simply to the —

principle of sales made to the Federal Government, which

was the sole question for the following argument in the

Penn, Dairies case. While, in the California case the only

question in contradistinctiori to the ruling in. the Penn

Dairies case—that of a possible determining factor of

Federal éenclave—was not discussed or argued.

. Import of Decision.

We feel. that this Court ha: not: appreciated the. full

import of its decision in this case; ‘There are literally —

-.shundreds of these Federal areas within California where

milk may now be sold without regard to price. There are

actually hundreds of thousands of our armed forces, as

well as thousands of civilians, i in these Federal areas who

by this decision will be. subjected to a milk. supply which

may. now be sold at those cut-throat below-cost prices

which the Federal as well as State governments have both

long ere this recognized as resulting in the scourges of

typhoid and onslaughts of tuberculosis which have so

devastated and crippled humanity in the not yet dim.

“ignorant past. st 3

" And shall we now for the apké. of a technical: priority eos

sacrifice the finest of our young manhood who are so

valiantly rendering up their young bodies to our complete

:. disposal that we may all five in the ideals which have -

- become an. integral part of America to the nefarious’

machinations Of traffickers to whom intestinal bacilli and

ee

, fields? ye

- Without doubt every: state in én Union will be vitally 7

affected, for, “by the same token, all-of those health and ~~,

"Sanitary sipilesiny. iintada not only for milk but for

- the ‘numerous other commodities’ where the punishable —

offense consists of the combined elements of preparation

and sale, are rendered hopelessly infocudus if the sales —

take place on Federal enclaves, the teeming spots of.

~ humanity which should be doubly and ‘ably protected _

against all preventable suffering and even. disabling in

preparation for the possible supreme sacrifice yet: to come.

Enforcement. ofthese standards is to a large ‘degree’

_ tied up with sales. *

:; For example, the enforcement provision of the market

_ milk standards in- California is found in Sec. 472 of the

: Agricultural Code, whith makes it “unlawful to sell, pur-

chase, or use as market milk, "* *. * —_ >

- which does not meet the requirements and standards of

_ market milk: * * -*” Production or possessiqg 0 of.

umpure:o or contaminated milk is not of itself, alone, p pypish-

able. eee |

- When all. sales of market milk within the State were —

deemed subject to this provision and distributors knew .

' that violation of such standards meant loss of license, _

these. standards could be efficiently policed by mapection

- of. the dairies and of the milk plants. ° :

_ Effect on Health Standards,

‘Tienes, with a vast and growing market within the —

State row freed from these regulations and not subject to

these standards, producers and distributors alike are im-

_mune. frors punishment and may produce and distribute

, whatever impure, contaminated and dirt infested milk that

they can get by with, restrained.only by such federal in-

_spection as may. be provided and whatever damage may -be ©

A

° 5 ° . :

suffered consequent | upon violation of their federal con-

tracts. :

_ / Moreover, thie danger. of contamination ail infection \

to the entire milk supply of the State arising from.this"

uncontrolled and unregulated milk production and dis-_

- tribution is fraught with tod dire possibilities, to-be per-

mitted without fully exploring avery egal comet in an

effort to prevent the same.

Another section, 642 of. the Pong Code, Laie

_ vides that:

heed

“Tt. is unlawfdl to am “give away, deliver, or to. -

"patella purchase or receive any milk, goat's milk,

sheep’s milk or product thereof which has been pro.

duced in or by.a dairy farm or. milk products’ plant —

- in‘an insanitary condition: (‘insanitary condition’ be-

..ing defined elsewhere in the code) or that is handled -

_ by any: carrier of milk or products thereof or in any

store or depot that is. in an- insanitary condition; -or »

that is produced from animals affected by any. disease,

"except as hereinafter roves:

But suppose the contract is enteged into. ‘on the sale

~~ and delivery of milk or milk products in violation of that

section take place ‘on federal ceded territory. Under the

: quoted ‘section it is the sale and delivery that constitutes

‘the unlawful act. Under-the decision: in‘the instant case.

_ California would be powerless to punish that act or tc

revoke a. distributor’s license for. such violation, because :

the sale, occurring on federal territory, was there lawful -

or ey examples might be Cited . applying: in the same’

manner to numerous fruit and ‘Vegetable standards | and-

_ Fegulations. ESI ae ie

“ r

- . ° °

Be. 0038 ‘ . 3

+ .

We ci that every. State has ona should “ane ‘the _

power to reach such a situation. The purpose is not, as

‘stated in the opinion of the Court, to punish citizens for

doing i in federal territory what by the law of the United

States is there law ful: The true purpose is wholly to the

; contrary. It is to protect the health and welfare of its

_ own citizens. And that protection the Federal: Govern-

ment has relied upon and should now rely. upon. In this

case the fact that the milk’ was sold to the United States

and that it was sold on ceded territory were mere inci-

dents. ~The destination of that milk and the identity of

that buy er were indifferent circumstances ar incidental

- to the transaction.

‘The entire California program of health, sanitation sai

“stability of the milk supply will not only be dangerously

undermined in the State asa whole, but will:be completely —

- Jost to-occupants* of the Federal areas 5 eithies California's .

ca boundaries.

To afford protection, ‘Congress souk be | forced to

legislate on these myriad local requirements ‘and to supply

inspection and enforcement,at these hundreds or thousands

of Federal areas. Since the taception of our. government

Congress has left this to the “several States and relicd

upon. them for’ its protection. :

‘So fur as “our inquiry has. progressed, in every sinaile ;

instance* the furnishing of public: utilities, such as water,

light, power, Bas, transportation, .etc., to Federal areas

within a State has been completely governed ‘by the rates —

‘and regulations of the State body entrusted with. public

utilities adn nistration.. In the single instance where this.

State authority: appears to have been questioned a Federal ©

court-upheld the-State power, although the text does not -

“disclose whether ‘the Federal area was - ceded . territory

or not,—a distinction which the court then apparently

deemed unimportant. ‘United States v. eee Gas &

Elec. Co.,. 297 Fed. 575. we ee ae

"Doctrine of Ouborn v. Onlin

In the instant opinion this Court, says:

“The court below points out that*the.statute regu-

lates only the conduct of -California’s citizens within

its own territory ; that it is the purchasing, handlgng,

and processing by the appellant in California of milk |

tobe sold below the fixed price—not the sale on -

Moffett Field—which is-prohibited, and- -entails the

. penalties prescribed. by the statute. And reliance is

laced. upon the settled doctrine that a state is not

disenabled from policitig its Own concerns, by the

mere fact that its regulations may beget effects on

_ those Tiving beyond: its s borders. Ny :

e dikion recognizes she “settled doctrine that a

e is not disenabled from policing. its own concerns, by

‘mere fact that its regulations. may beget effects on

living beyond its borders. ” (Alaska Packers Assit.

, . Commission, 294 Us S. 532, 541; Osborn v. - Oslin, 3108,

U.S S. 53, 62-63.) .. :

This settled srinciple i is met, Sia with the simple

statement, unamplified by. discussion or supported by prece-

‘dent, that such doctrine is without application here because

of the — granted the Federal Government over

Moffett Field. . < |

This Sainte. would appear’ to be silighawies based ee

en a holding that the- -sovereignity of the United States -

_ over a Federal enclave as related to the State in‘which it

Ae eel 06. o s

“ae 2 at a s es >? ,

> ; ‘We 2 r * re

Der mee tg :

. . BY

XQ \

a Sie : é

ti sere Mo N : cs

4 *

i “™ '

Pe x 2 a é

, 3 e ms iS: ‘oe

-

ae

% <a bre eer ‘than. is ‘the kovereignt nty “Of aS} aN

X!° over: it oi erritory as). related ‘to a sister State! ©.

ea “Am “Osteen! if Oalin, supra, ‘Virginia’ provided that in-< 2 of”

eae suranice: conapanies licensed ms do’ business in“ that a “5

“a > . i aon should: ae ke: “contracts ‘off insurance’ on persons o )

,* Se _property_w thi athe: State. extept through resident atid ~

if wee - therein who could: nat share. more: thay, one-half ‘of the | *’

% eA ne ne - commission « with. a << agent. Violation was ° i |

+ ee si hap nr -tey ation of the license \

| | Nee riati2 ~ (To same effect, see Hoepes- /— hs

npeee Oyeaher, ES

Sates

tere

Pe aes

Std: [Ss the: ‘Yall commission “was' ‘just: as valid a contract as:

oe — a Was Tithe contract in- “the. instant ‘case between. the dis-“

=e 7 gltgioe and the Federal Gorerainent to. > furnish the milk

ie f at Moffett, Field. «3 ges

Pitty This, Cesirt’in de: Oslin ‘ase, “howpre, uphel the *

ones Se = New. ae rere &s |

“3 Vita regulation, and said? ae ee f

ie sy eS Virginia has not t to. prohibit the raking AS

; of ‘contracts beyond he ers. She<fnerely ¢laims

fit that’ her interest in : risks which these contracts ae

Mare designed td preven warrants ‘the’ kind of con. |

. NES, 5 - trol-she has here imposed iNet See ae

£ ae: ues : my

California. | has. not. en to prohibit the making of ita

ih contracts in Moffeti Field: er in. ‘other Federal en-.

ant # . ¢aves within the Sta: , She, likewise, merely. claims that \

ay Be interest in protecti ing the health and welfare of her

. aes warrants. ths 0d of _ control: “she: has here io ;

a ; I ae

% ; < 4h * | 4 i g i

SR Sey “8

Se rea ik ee

” gaa nik ag a ak hen eet ae

far: more-essential to the interest of the State (and: of Lae

~ the Fegeral Government as well) oS ee -

-the risks Ps siren Saye loss” in insurance. - eee

"Exclusive Jurisdiction,

"While unquestionably the jlrisdiction of the Federal Sea

_ Government in such “ceded”. ‘enclaves ‘ as» Moffet Field

‘is exclusive, the “exclusiveness” of that jurisdiction eee

no greater: nor more potent sthan the slamwceseet of the a

” State within its sphere. : mites <

me ederal jurisdiction in its appropriate’ iis) vis ‘su.

tes within the limits of their powers -

‘not ‘graiied. or as@expressed by: the Tenth. Amendment .

: syreserved,’ * should - be -as independent of the general

» government as that government. within its sphere is in-

"5 dependent of the states. (Buffington v. Day, - U. S. eae

(IL Wall) 113, 124, 20 L. Ed. 122.) hier

— | It is not apparent. what greater sanctity. attaches to,

validity of a contract ‘made: in compliance with ahe

< « Fedérgl laws on’ Moffett Field because of Federal juris-"

* desig than attaches. to the. validity of a conitract made

oo pliance with the laws of Rew York betause ote -- 4

“jit of that . State. Ey cae ae ests Sasa Ree

* — _“¥et this Court» reached ‘the ‘conclusion in. “the Oslin

Casi, supra, that the State of Virginia ‘might revoke be er =

* license of an iv-urance ‘company. for making a <Soatrat

- in New ‘York to pay’ the full commission to a: resident - -

New Viet agent.on insurance covering Virginia profierty

becawpes puch a contract violated. the ree 8 statute.

a

s

- On the other hand, in the instant case it is held that °

California may not take measures _ affecting ‘one: of - its

licensed distributors for violations of a’. California, statute,

because éne of the cothponetit ‘elements. of the violation,

to-wit, the, sale, took place gn. Moffett, Field, a Federal — }

_entlave-situate within the boindaries of California.

ed

‘Undet these insiarafck decisions it cannot be doubted fe

that if the transactions occurred? even. in a foreign coun-

try. the State i legislation -would still be valid as applied .

Ss to the actiyities “within the State which enacted the laws.’

_ For example, if the Oslin. case had ‘involved a contract

of insurance effected in Canada, the result clearly, under Ps

oS, . Ot would fa VE DES P Se YS gt oS?

eek. inthe. case at bar this- Court. has held

‘that in a similar situation where the acts | -which con-

stitute an “essential element ‘in the violation occur within:

a Federal enclave, “exclusive jurisdiction” of the United J

_ States wholly defeats. the power of the. State over the: —

acts of its own citizens committed within .the. State—

and this in a situation where. the legislation | is enacted ap

¢

, pursuant to the police power of the State in ‘its: ‘most

‘fundamental sense, . sid the protection -of- the life and

~ health. of its inhabitants “and also of f ‘the occupants of the

, Federal pues’ iene :

We believe ‘that this reasoning is ine*npatible with: this

Ci ourt’s construction of Article # Section 8, Clause : 17,

ae the Constitution ‘providing that the United States shall

‘have power to exercise “exclusive legislation” ‘over Fed-

'

— et

eral sine aren the beginning this ‘Court tie held that

“the Federal sovereignty over such areas is far more cir: |

S * cumsefibed than is the sovereignty of a State over the . _

ae "territory within ‘its. er was, ‘involved in

' ’ the Os slin and other similar ’ Rhus the Court has,

held that the laws ° of the ‘State in effect at the date :

of cession shall continue in effect. (Stewart & te. 9: =

" Sadracula, 309 U. S. 94.) Many, other exceptions have

been announced (see - dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice:

Frankfurter herein). It is clear, _ submit, that re-

gardless of the ype of the “exclusive” jurisdftion

which. ‘is exerci by Congress over such. areas; such

jurisdiction is‘ not more ‘ “exclusive” than that a

sovereign State ov er its territory and citizens. , ~

“4

“If the: principles of ‘the Oslin case- be not adopted as :

: controlling here, then it seems. clear that in the interests

of the public welfare this Court should hold, as it has

: held generally-in its’ decisions under the Commerce clause,

he that the laws. of the states enacted in. the exercise of the

| “police power in matters of local concern may. apply to

: Federal areas in the. absence of. contrary Federal legisla-

As this Court has’ held in its decisions under the

Commerce~elause, this would not deny. the exclusive

jurisdiction of the United States, for it would have plenary °

> power to _enact_any- legislation_at-any- time,—but-it-would--——

not leave: a hiatus in the laws of the Federal areas so that’. .~

~ the very chactic and dangerous situation now threatening”

consumers of. milk in California ( within, as well as with-

° ont, Federal. quran) could CN. oe

*

Too much emphasis has been placed, we ‘bdlieve, on the:

bide: legal aspects of the sale and-too little upon the»

‘real ae of =the statute. Because of the approach

a.

ie fo the cas; companion ap. 8l was to the Fenn Dairies ease;

3 from the standpoint of whether or-not Congress had af-

._firmatively enacted legislation inconsistent with the Cali- :

fornia law, the case appears to have betn considered al- =

most wholly. from the standpoiht of an assumption that

the only. provisions of the law ‘involved_are those relating

to’ the’ sale at @ given price. Collateral to this is the as- |

os sumption that all. of the _ provisions of the State law pro-

| tecting | the supply of milk, its sanitation, its bacterial

: maintenance fall, pects the sale is made upon Federal -

count; its freedom from: tuberculosis and undulant fever, -

etc.,. are safeguards sstill enjoyed by the Army at the

lesser price. As a:matter of fact, the health provisions’ ~.

~ of the Jaw-stand-on exactly the same. basis as. the price _

provisions. If: these regulations, contingent upon price

territory, then all other health regulations, the violation

of which ‘are contingent upon a sale, must Likewise fall.

The. decision finds “that the true purpose (of the Cali

fornia’ statute) was to punish California’ § own citizens

‘for doing in exclusively Federal territory what by the

law of the United States was there lawful.” The same

statement ‘could be“made equally: applicable to the Virginia

insurance stattite above | mentioned, where, in that instance,

the contract . to pay the full commission to the non-

_ resident broker was made in New York. ;

: de Seceniat cnleinn eee een er

It.is said that this purpose was to be accomplished “‘un-

. 2 in sieg state.”

Oe oS Oe en ee

ck ny Vin ciemniceaies shi dence ak hi citins Oo,

as the Court indicates, solely to control the price of milk

_in this Federal ‘area, In fact, the State has consistenitly -

~ repudiated all interit and power to foist its minimum milk

price structure into such Federal territory ; ‘but it has just

as consistently sought to protect the milk ‘supply. by. in-

~~ sisting that its licensed_mmilk_distributors obtain an ade-

* quate sminimum price for such .milk as they handle under < -

their licensed operations ir California. “The provision of

the statute here in question. * (736. 3(a) ) (6) Agricultural

* Code) does not apply directly nor exclusively to Federal -

territory. An examination of this ‘subsection, together be

with subsections (7) and (8) :[See Apjatndix A to Brief

oF Appellees, p. 14 on file herein] following the same,

demontrate¢ beyond question that this is Only part of a

comprehensive plan ‘to instife the protection and mainte-

nance of an adequate supply of. pure and. wholesome milk

by means of preventing the utilization of California’s |

nilk production by its distributors unless they obtain for

“the same an established: minimum price which* the-State-———

has found to be. necessary for that pyr pose. Where, or to —

-whom, the sale is made is purely incidental. ' )\The obtain-

ing of the necessary minimum price is the: essential Fequi--

-. site. The: fact that the contract was made and: the tithe: —

: passed presumably: on Federal territory should not ‘defeat IE

this s#lutary purpose any more so than did the fact i in the

‘ Oslin case that the contract was made in the State’ of

| New York.

inne

ar

.

inp

\ > :

>

—jo

i)

aig

iB 5

United States v. Press Publishing Co.

“Nowhere in the ‘opinion is aty reference made to the

case of United States v.*Press Publishing Co.’ 219 U.S.

1 (1911), 31 S. Ct 212, 55 L. Ed. 65, cited: by counsel .

in the Pémn Dairies case, Supra.

Ti glint Yo. Wt ei in AW Oi

sion ion rests wholly upon the fact.that the sale by the licens

: distributor below the established minimum price was cos-

sidered by the Court to be the eSsential element ‘of the

: offense. And because this sale occurred in Federal terri-

tory, the Colirt concluded that the State could not punish

because such sale was not in violation of any Federal law. -

In a oe Press. emer peta ees: soak ae

5)

“here involved was’ reached by the Court. There, aicor

fense was libel. The utterance and publication took place

"at the United States Post Office in New. York and. the ~~

: West Point (itary Reservation, both of which are

‘Federal enclaves over which the Federal jurisdiction "Qe

just as exclusive ; as that over Moffett Field. Just as the

> inscant sale violates no Federal law, so, there, the utter-

ance or publication of the libel violated no Federal law.

ne te eee ibe wee AOS, Het the

ee a libel con- >

~‘summated upon Federal enslaves. (the Post Ofice at New |

York and.the West Point Military Reservation over w which

the Federal government had exclusive jurisdiction) ‘where

the preliminary acts of assembling the, material and doing

b)

ie 4

—1s—

in the State of ‘New York and under its jurisdiction. In

plete the offense, just as in the

complete the libel. =~,

as The authority of the Press Publishing case has: “never

eee iS

Court in People. of Puerto Rico v. Shell Company, 302

UL S..253, 266, 58S. Ct. 167, 173, 82 L. Ed. 235:

the printing, one of the elements of the offeise, took place

rs ae

The- language used by this Court in-deciding the Haop-

the present case, the purchasing, handling and processing

“of the milk, one of the elements of the offense, took place -

_. in California, just as the. purchasing of the paper, arrang-

_sing of the material, and the printing of the libelous matter .

took place in.New York i in the Press ; Publishing casein

-——-the present instance, only ‘the the sale, the final element of the: -

offense, took place in. the Federal enclave, just as in the. ~

Press Publishing case the publication of the libelous mat- _

ter, the final element of the offense, took place in the Fed-

eral enclave. In the instant case, it required the sale and

- delivery (in this instance on the Federal territory). to com-. el os

Senet

e

~ required the publication (also on the Federal enclave. to

-_ been questioned and it was cited with approval by ol

Scant

case is peculiarly applicable here.

- of the ‘Oslin case, the Court said:

“In determining. the pow er_of a. state to apply. its

wists regulatory laws to .insitrance. business activities,

been. recognized that a state may have ‘substantial

__ interests-in the business of insurance. of -its people

&

In the Hoopston Canning case, folloging, the doctrine -

the question in earlier ‘cases ‘becanie involved: by con-_

- ceptualistic discussion: of theories of the place of con-.

tracting -or of pegformance: More recently it has —

_ $ton Canning Co. case the same day it decided oe instant. __-_—

a

“or property regariless of these isolated factors. This

interest may be measured by highly realistic consid-

erations such as the protection of the citizen’ insured

or the protection: of the sfate from the incidents of

loss. “* * *” (Emphasis added.) j

; “Surely the interest that the State (and the Federal gov-

> ernment, as well) has in an adequate; pure and- wholesome ES

_ = milk supply for its people far more substantial and vital |

Ahan its interest in the | ae ot Seren ee:

or property: ance ny amr

et " Apparently we are left with: no ‘alternative other than to

glean’ from ‘these two decisions (Pacific Coast Dairy and

* Hoopston Canning Co. cases): that the Court will follow a”

ae conceptualistic. approach when relations between the State

ederal governments are involved. Then, “the niceties

7 of the law of sales and contracts” and the passing of title

_and terms of cession and the degree of “exclusiveness” of

jurisdiction. must be weighed, while men, women and chil-

dren, ‘both within the State and within the Federal areas,

are exposed to the dangers of impure and unwholesome

milk, as well as a shortage of fresh milk. :

seal

“—t

‘ie But in the relation between a. State and private parties .

-the protection of the financial interest involved may be

* \approached from such a.realistic viewpoint as to allow the

State to protect these interests to the point of regulating ‘

what its licensees may not do in other sta ———

| _ fectly valid\under the laws of such other : 3

_ We attach hereto as.an addenda, in:

instructions and ‘under the authority: of the Attorneys

General of the States named, the fequest of a majority of

the States of the Union that a rehearing of this cause be

fs ca

‘2

a) ee

A ea : z

>

G

—_* : :

“We believe that thie tremendous import of this decision, |

which appears to be one of first impression; its vital and

far-reaching effect in'so many of our States ; its divergence .~

- from the result reached | relating to. extraterritorial state

os control over insurance, a matter of far less moment;

: apparent ‘departure from -the. principles of ‘the Press ee

lishing case; and the confusion and practical confifet pos- —

_ + sible ‘in adjoining military rescane in the Sirice and

oo

purity ‘of milk supplied, depende t wholly un the title :

and terms of cession of the military site, justly warrant a‘

“ further consideration of this case by a Court.

‘And we present this petition in th hope that this high

Court may Se able to find it withip’its power to reconcile

the legal requirements to the th exigencies, thus en-

i abling all- of these’ ‘States to, viola together their huruani-

tarian regulations, so hardfy gained, and as a final pro-

tection to’ the vastly increasing Federal enclaves filled with

their myriad youth, no longer under the ee of their ;

home states.

Se ~ Respectfully submit —

ne. sie mie Rosert W. Kenny, -*~ =

: > Altorney General of the State of C alifornia:

| W. R. AucustiNE, SKS es

ares) > teen . Watrer L; Bowers, ot

Deputies Attorney General, -

| Counsel. for ‘Appellees.

.

é a Wines! §: Shenniepacsonmendeh tied ahaeeiainel |

Tees, do hereby city int oegblng: sutton See

ns ener ee er

hon tay.

4

“Watran L. Dowsss:

.

- Counsel for A ppellees:*

. -

\\

poe

° .

é 1

‘ =

- ’ =

4

ee a\

€. \

‘neys General hereby join in respectfully, requesting: and:

_ earnestly urging that. a rehearing. be granted in.the within

- entitled case of Pacific Coast Dairy Co. v. Departinent, of

‘Agriculture et al, . ne

State of Alabama: |

William N. MeQueen, Acting Atsoriey General.

"2". State of ‘Atleina :”

Joseph ‘W. Conway, Attorney General.

- State‘of Arkansas:) = | aut

Guy E. Williams, anid General.

State of Colorado: ;

— * Gail L. Ireland,. Attorney General

ante of ‘Connecticut :

‘Francis A. Pallotti, Attorney. ee

State of Delaware:

eee Clait J. Killoran, Attorney General. Na atte se

State of Florida: : Se ce at he

. J. Tom Watson, Attorney General.

State of G seorgia : : ~ tt

aa © Grady Head, Asoraey | Gaecrik |

State of Idaho: sine ns

. Bert H: ‘Miller, Attorney Sensi :

Statevof Iowa: cane -. Nee ra = pee :

_ John M. Rankin, Attorney Genéral pare aie

State ¢ of Kentucky: ae |

we ‘Hubert Meredith; Attorney ‘General. :

M. B> Holifield, First: Assistant Attorney General

The a bales porn States ‘by their ‘respective Attor- |

Py id

4 ne

»*

o —20— ,

“State of Louigiana: Be se

Eugene Stanley, pase: 3 General:

. State of Maine: .

Frank I, Cowan, aviorney ena“

i State of Maryland:

. William C. Walsh, cen General,

| State | of Missouri:

State of Minnesota:

Roy McKittrick, Auorney Gs General.

J. “AL A. Burnquist, Attorney General.

State ‘of Montana:

RV. Bottomly, Attorney General

* State wry New Mexico:

Edward P. Chase, Attorney. General

* |. State of Nevada: - :

Alan H. Bible, , Attorne} —

State of New Hampshire: | : rhea .

Stephen. M. Wheeler, Acting Attorney Gunaeel.

3 Se of North’ Carolina:

Harry McMullan, Attorney General.

| State of North Dakota:

“Alvin C. Strut, ‘Attorney Ge General,

State of Oregon: .

I. H. “Van Winkle, ‘Attorney ‘General.

State of South Dakota:

George T. Mickelson, Attorney General.

_ State of. Utah:

Grover A. Giles, Attorney General.

oS. Se

+ AY

‘ . “s , .. 7

a x

ML

4 @.i2% :

—21—

z '

hans. General. /

Fred E. Lewis, Acting Attorney General

s State of West Virginia: a bs

Ira J. Partlow, Stag Attorney -y General.

State of. Wyoming : pe : TE

: aes: Omarr, Attorney General ee

.

¢

*

9

.

: 8 as.

9

ss | e

$ ~ :

Y

i)

cre o

te . .

2

="

eo s

‘

*

>

y

. 4. ;

a i /

a i *

7 I

ve : j

. i

e-

~«

.

.

.

* .

.

“

‘

9

.

.

. ve eer

x ‘ ts ke

A ° & “e

erp. 12,3, Tet dvecent-’

ao.

- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STA

No. 275.—Ocronmm Teru, 1942.

, ?

~ > .

Ns . a

-, Pacifie Coast Dairy, Inc,

3 — es Fe from the Supreme

Department of Agriculture of drs of California,

California et al. |

hac mp

&

Mr. Justice Roserts delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant challenges a judgment of the Supreme Court of

California dismissing a writ of alternative mandamus and deny-

ing @ permanent writ te prevent the Department of Agriculture

of the State from conducting a proceeding to revoke its license |

as & distributor of milk. - The court,. in denying relief, overruled ~

several contentions, based upon the federal Constitution, which.

are here renewed.

-

TES.

. ¥

; 2

Chapter 10 of the Ag¢icultural-Code of California? provides

_, “plan for the ‘stabilization and marketing of fluid milk and fluid’

tream’’, It declares their production ‘and distribution a business

affected with a public interest, and the regulstion of the business

an exéreise of the police power; states that existing unjust, un-

fair, destructive and demoralizing practices menace the health and

| Welfare of the people, despite sanitary regulatjons; and that it

* is necessary to promote intelligent production and orderly market-

- ing by eliminating the. evil practices existing in the industry.

- The law empowers the Director of Agriculture to license dis-

|. tributors and to- establish marketing areas within which: uniform

Prices and regulations for tye sale of milk shalJ prevail.

The appellant was a licensed distributor doing business in the

Santa Clard '

119 Cal. 24 818; 123 P. 24 449.

County marketing area, in which there -were in effect a

‘,, Deering, 1937, Div. 4, €. 10, §§ 735-738, as aimerided, Deering, 1941’ Supp., ©

467. :

Pp. 462-46 ’ ¢

A

$ "

e

vA

~\

‘,

2 Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept: of Agriculture of Cal.

\ °

stabilization and marketing plan and schedules of minimum ‘whole. -

sale and retail prices. It entered into a contract with the War De-

partment of the United States, signed. by the Quartermaster’s

«Department of Moffett Field, to sell milk to the Department at

____ Moffett: Field, whieh-les-within-the boundaries’ of the Santa Clara

County marketing area, at less than the minimum price fixed for. §

the ateéa. Sales and deliveries under. the contract took place on

Moffett Field.

_ A complaint was filed with’ the Department of Agriculture

—— the appellant violated § 736.3(a)(6) of the Code which.

prov that an unfair practice, warrantiag revocation of license.

or pros ution is: ;

“The purchasing, processing, bottling, transporting. delivering

‘ or othérwise. handling in any marketing area of any fluid milk §&

or fluid cream which is to be or is sold. or otherwise disposed of — §

. by such distributor at gny place in the geographic&l area within ~ |

- the outer, outside and external boundaries or-limits of such mark-

eting area, whether such place is a part of the marketing area

-or not, at less than the minimum. wholesale’ and minimum ‘retail

prices effective in such marketing area.’’ _

This section did not appear in the Code until 1941, 3 when it

was added as an amendment. California recognized its. lack of

power io fix retail prices for milk sold within federal enclaves

located in the State.‘ But the legislature desired to accomplish

this. In 1941 it memorialized Congress, requesting passage of a

federal law requiring purchasing _ officers of the arived services

/ -purehasing food supplies for troops or agéncies of the United

States located inthe State to refuse bids for milk at prices below ‘

those fixed under the California Milk Stabilization Law or amend-

ments thereof.> The memorial was: referred to the Committee on

Agriculture of the House and to.the Committee on Agriculture -

and Forestry of the Senate,® but was never acted upon ‘by either

committee. ‘Congress having failed to act, Section 736.3(a) (6)

‘and others, were added to the Code, July 16, 1941, forthe parpos

of reaching sales on federally ‘owned lands,

3 Cal, Stats. 1941, Chap.- 1214; p. 3008.

4 Opinions of California Atty.-Gén. N. 8. 1905, \. 5. 1950 [1889];. Com

solidated Miix Producers v: Parker, 19 Cal. 2d 815; 123 Pse. 2d 440; ef.

Standard Oi! Co. v. California, 291 U. 8. 242. in a

5 Cal. Stats. 1941,-Chap. 65, p. 3402. ae

6 “o* Ree., Part 5, 5644,.5698.

\

the exelusive jurisdiction of the federal. government.

. Boe a 3 PL ; = ee

Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept. of Agricidture of Cal. 3

Moffett Field was acquired by the United States under an Act

of Congress,” and it is coriceded that it has. always been under

. The appellant Sought a writ of mandamus from the court “below

7 restrain the Department . of Agriculture. from proceeding to

hear afd act uppn the pending'complaint. An alternative writ

issned. After return by the appellees, setting up only tliat the

omplaint failed to state facts: sufficient ‘to constitute a cause of

action, the court discharged the: alternative writ and denied a

> sypecginptory ‘writ. The facts we have recited appear in the peti- -

. tion forge w¥it'or are matters of which the court below and this :

court, nes alte notice. i

.Thé Supreme Court ‘of California peerruded: the appellant’s ©

contentions that t.e State’s ‘conceded control .of activities within

its jurisdiction ga¥e it no authority to penalize transactions oc-

euring on Moffett Field; that the State law violates the conumerce

clause 6f Article I, §8 of the féderal Constitution; that it runs

- afoul of congressional. action embodied in the federal Agricultural —

_ Marketing Agreement Act,® and that ij unlawfully burdens 4

- federal ‘instrumentality. We find it- mecemmary to consider only -

_ the tract which is now. called Moffett Field shal! ‘be accepted by the United

” the contention first stated. xi

“The exclusive character of the jurisdiction of the United States

on Moffett ‘ield- is conceded. Article I, § 8, clause -17 of the Con-

stitution of the United States declares the Congress shall ‘have

| power ‘‘To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

_over’"'the District of Columbia, ‘‘and to exercise like Authority over

all Places purchased by ‘the Consent of the Legislature. of the State

in ‘which the Same shall bé, for the Eré¢etion’ of. Forts, . Magazines,

Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Buildings ;’’ ;

When the federal government acquired the tract, local law not

inconsistent with federal policy remained in force until altered

_ bf hational Jlegislation.’° The state statute involved was adopted

7 Act of February 12, 1931, e. 122, 46 Stat. 1092. This act provides that

States without cost to the government. . The petition: for mandamus alleges

_ Government of the United States for erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, “dock-

: — ‘and other needful buildings.’’ . .-. The appellant and the Govern-

nt_treat ‘thisaallegation as conclusive, since it was not denitd by the ap-

pelle Nothing turns, in our view, on the method. of acquisition.

*See Cal. Stats. 1897, p. 51; Political Code of California, § 34; U. 8. Con

stitution, Art. I, $4, clause 17 a ,

* 50° Stat. 246, 7 UT. & C.! 66 a

10 marae & Co. ©. Sadrakaln -~ U. 8. 94, 99.

/

.

_ that, more than fifteen’ years ago, Moffett Field ‘‘was purchased by the —

5 4

4 Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal.

long after the transfer of sovereignty and was without force i in the

enclave. It follows that contracts to sell and stles: consummated |

within the enclave cannotihe regulated by the California law. To

hold otherwise would be to. affirm that California may ignore ihe

Constitutional provision that ‘*This Constitution, and the Laws of

the United States which shall be made i in Pursuance thereof ; :

' shall be the supreme Law of the Land; mw 3° Tt would-by

- a denial of the federal power ‘‘to exercise exclusive Legislation. rad

- As respects such federal territory Congress has the combined powerd

” of a general and a state government.'3 ©

The. answer of the State and of. the: court, below is one of con

fession and avoidance, —confession that the law in. fact operates -

, to affect action by the appellant within federal territory, but

" avoidance. of the conclusion of invalidity by the. assertion that. the

law in. essence is the reguiation of conduct wholly within the”

State’ S$ jurisdiction.

The court below points out that the statute regulates only the

conduct of California’s citizens within its own territory; that

\

it is the purchasing, handling, and pfocéssing by the appellant

_in California of* milk to be ,sold below the fixed price—not the ,

gale on Moffett Field—which is prohibited, and entails the pen-

_alties prescribed by the, statute. And _ reliance is placed upon the

settléd doctrine that a state is not disenabled from policing its

own concerns, by the mere fact that its regulations may beget

‘edt: those living beyond its borders.'4 We think, however,

that it’ is without applieation here, because of. the authority

'. granted ‘the Federal Government over Moffeti Field.

In the light of the history. of the legislation, we are constrained.

to find ‘that, the true purpose .was to punish California's, own

citizens for doing in exclusively federal territory -what-by ‘tae law

-—of the United States: was there lawful, under the grise of penal.

iaing’ preparatory conduct occurring in the State,—to punish the

appellant for a, transaction carried on under sovereignty conferred

by Art. I, § 8, clause $7 of the Constitution, and ungler authority

superior to that of California: by virtue of the supremacy clause.

We have this day held in Penn Dairies, Inc. vy. Milk Control

Cc ommission, No. 399, that a different decision is reyuired where

11 Art. VI; clause 2.

12 James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 wv. 8. 134, 141.

18 Stoutenburgh v., Hennick, 129 U. 8. 141, 147.

14 Alaska Peckers Assn, v. Commission, 204 U. 8. 532, 541; Osborn.v. Ozlin,

310°U, 8, 53, 62- 63.

a

4

a pee cl

- f

_Pacifte Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept. of ‘Aneniieigs of Cal. 5

—the contract and the sales occur within a state’s jurisdiction, absent

specific national legislation excluding the operation of the state’s.

_ regulatory laws. | The conclusions may seem ‘contradictory; but tr

. in preserving the balance between national and‘ state power, .

seemingly inconsequential differences ‘often require diverse re-

sults. This must be so, if .we are to ‘accord to various provisions

of fundainental law their natural effect in the cireumstances dis- .

closed. So to ‘do is not to make subtle or technical distinctions __--—

to deal in legal refinements... Here we are botiid to respect the ~.

“7, ~Felevant ustitutional provision with respect to the exclusive

power of Congréss over federal lands. As Congress, may,’ if it

find the national interest so requires, override the State. milk law _—

__ of Pennsylvania as respects purchases for the Army, so it may, -

if not inimical to the same interest -subject its purchasing officers

on Moffett Field to the restrictions of the milk law of California.

‘Until it speaks we should enforce the limits of power imposed by

_ the provisions of the fundamental law.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded on further

proceedings not incorsistent with this opinibn. ;

So ontired

Mr. Justice RuTLEDGE took no ) part in the consideration or

decision of this case. - ry |

Mr. Justice Buack, , Mr. Sustice Dovaras and Mr. Justice

JACKSON. 1 Re

“While we have joined,in the opinion of the Court, we are also

- Of the view’that the judgment below should be reversed-for the —

__additional—reason set forth in the dissenting opinion in Penn ,

Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comme, No. 399, decided this = .,

da

“i ’ Peete

veo

i milk for the use of the

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ae ae. Y 275.—OcToper Term, 1942:

Pacific Coast Dairy, ‘Ine., Sc at

Appellant, = - -Appeal from the’ Supreme

oath vs. pee » Court of the State of Cali-

Department of Agriculture of fornia. -

"the State of California, et al. |

{March 1, 1943. ]

Mr. Justice FRaNKFURTER, dissenting.

Both Pennsylvania and California, as part of’ their control over

the. supply and distribution of milk for the needs of their -people,

regulate the prices at which milk may be sold within: the state:

In both states, more. particularly at Indiantown Gap Military

Reservation, Pennsylvania, and at Moffet, Field, California, units*

_ “of the United States Army are stationed. At each of these sites~_

_the contracting officer, a junior officer in the Quartermaster -

Corps, invites bids for the sale of milk to the Army. Are these

two contracting officers authorized under existing federal law to

accept bids that undercut the prices fixed by Pennsylvania and

California for the supply of milk within their borders and thereby |

—disloeate,in—part-at least, the: regulatory systems established by

the.two states? fad ‘°

‘In No. 399, Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control ‘Commission of — .

Pennsylvania, Penn Dairies, a milk dealer of ° Lancaster, Pengsyl-..

, Vania, supplied milk for the use of the Army at Indiantown Gap

Military Reservation. Their sales were. the result of successful bid-

ding at prices below the minima fixed by the Pennsylvania Milk

Control Law. Subsequently, when Penn Dairies applied for renewal -

of its li¢ense to do business under state law, the Pennsylvania Milk

_ Control Commission denied the application ‘on the ground that the

sales to the Arm¥’ were not immune from the minimum price pro-

_ Visions of the Pennsylvania law. The Pénnsylvania Supreme Court

¢

_ Sustained this determination. In this ease, No. 275, Pacific Coast .

- Dairy, Ine., v.. Department: of Agriculture of California, Pacific —~

Coast Dairy, a milk dealer of ‘San Franciseo, California, supplied

Army at Mott, Field, about thirty-five miles

\ , : \ : Roe 9 : Y ~

‘ —— —-

—. Pacific Coast Dairy -Inc. V8. s Dept. of Mailed of C Cal.

from San Francisco. Their sales, too, were the result of successful .

. bidding at prices below those fixed by Califorpia law. For #hus

departing from the price provisions of .the sta™® law under which

it was licensed to do business, the California Department of Agri-

« ‘Sulture instituted proceedings to revoke? Pacific ‘Coast Dairy’s

. licetise. To siay these proceedings the dairy-sought a writ of man-

damus, which was denied by the Supreme Court. of California:

In my view, the Court in upholding the refusal by Pennsylvania .

to renew a license because of an arrangement made on behalf of

the Government must imply that the contracting officer of the -

- Indiantewn Military Gap Reservation was not authorized to accept

bids below the minimum price requriements set by Pennsylvania

for the’ sale of. milk, within the state. In the California case,

.) however, the Court holds that the ‘contracting officer for Moffet

Field may, in the case of sales and deliveries made on Moffet

Field, contract at prices below those fixed by California for the

sale pf milk within ite borders. Opposite legal results. are thus

reached for precisely. the same practical situations. The ‘justifi-

cation for this incongruity in defining the scope of the authority of .

_ the two contracting officers is attributed to the difference in the

_ nature of the Government’s .proprietary interest in each of the

_ two Army sites. Indiantown Gap Military Reservation is held by

: the United States under. lease from the Commonwealth of yr

’ sylvania.” Moffet, Field belongs to the United Statées outright. On

the basis of this difference in the federal Government's proprietary

interest in the two Army facilities, Indiantown Gap Military Res-

ervation is deemed. not to ve within the ‘exclusiv® jurisdiction”

~ of the Govewhment while Moffet, Field is deemed within’ “sygh “ex:

~ elusive jurisdiction’. And from this classification it is deduced

that milk sold to the Army for the use of our soldiers at Indian- .

_ town Gap Military Reservation must comply with the price pro-

visions of Pennsylvania law, but that milk.may be sold to the-

Army for the use of our soldicrs at: Moffet, Field in disregard of

.™~ the minimum prices set by. California.

‘Tégal refinements are not always the worse for eluding the quick

_ tinderstanding of a layman. But I do not believe that in deter-

' mining the duty of contracting officers serving the same Army

te

function—a_ matter that turns on considerations of policy in the .-

relation of the various Army posts to the states in which they are

_ gituated—lega! categories compel a difference in result where’ prac-

tical judgment and experience lead to an identity in result. The

pee :

2 a

Pacific. Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Debt. of Agisculture ‘of Cal. 3

power given to Congress by Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, to

' “exercise exclusive: Legislation’’ over federal enclaves is not so

tyrannical as’ to preclude in lgw what good sense requires.

_ . ‘The so-called exclusive jurisdiction drawn from the grant to ,

Congress of power to legislate waa has, as a matter of. his-

torical fact,- become increasingly less and less exclusive. ‘In early .

days when the activities of the federal Government made only.

negligible inroads upon territorial areas within the states, it was

: assumed that federal exclusiveness was a fact rather than a

potentiality, and: that the states were precluded, from reserving:

authority in lands within the state which were ceded to the Gov- .

ernment. But i notion never .became law, and has now been ©

formally repu ‘‘The possible importance of» rcserving to

the State jurist¥ttion for local purposes which involve ‘no inter-

ference with thegerformance of governmental functions is becom-

ing more and more clear as the activities of the Government expand

and large areas within.the States are acquired.’’ James v. Dravo

Contracting Co:; 302 U. S. 134, 148; and see Mason Co.-v. Tax

- Comm’n, 302 U. 8. 186. Indeed, in the case of Moffet, Field itself “y a

the authority of the United. States is not-in any true sense exclu- ~

sive, even as to matters of political authority, for California’s act

* of cession provided that both criminal’ and civil process issued by

California should have the same neat, on _Moffet, Field-as else t

where i in the state. = - ad

- Since exclusive diate nine not be exercised by © ngres,

there is at times ‘‘ancertainty and confusion’’ whether , urisdic- ,

tion belongs to the federal Government or has been left. with the

state. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 27. And although the”

acts of cession may leave ‘‘no room for doubt’’ that, ‘‘ jutisdic-

’tion’’ ‘‘remained with the State’’, ‘‘administrative construction”’

may nevertheless generate federal jurisdiction. Id, at 29. Even

where the federal Government suppoggdly has ‘exclusive’ juris-

diction, a close examination of complicated legislation may uphold,

excise tax provisions of a state alcoholic beverage control law but .

not provisions that “go beyond aids to the collection of taxes and

are truly regulatory in character’’. Collins v. Yosemite Park Co.,

. 804 U. S. 518, 533. And while lip service is paid to the doctrine

of ‘exclusive jarisdiction’”’ by professing to absorb-for federal’ —

enctaves those laws of the staté which were enforced there ‘prior ©

- to its cession, the liberality with\ which gstate social measures are

deemed not to impinge upon the national purposes for which the

.

- eourse determined by what ‘Congress says. If Congreés makes thé

, enclave ‘was, established,: -is a iecognition in fact that the Consti-.

Ae ‘as is the law of China, then federal jurisdiction’ would really be

| prohinition on the national government, or its officers’. Neitber |

dts the C. alifornia regulation. It clearly does not as tq federal

4 / Pacifie Coast Dairy, ‘Inc. vs. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal.

tution permits sensible adjustments between state and federal

authority: although activ ities subject to legal control take place on

federal territory within a state. See, e. oy Count & Co. A

. Sadrakula, 309 U-'S. 94. -

Enough has been said to show that: the doctrine of etinatics

"jurisdiction" " over. federal énelaves is. not-an imperative. The

phrase is indeed a.misnomer ‘for the manifold legal phases of the

. diverse situations arising out of the existence: of federally-owned -

lands’ .within—a- state—prablems calling ‘hot for°a single, simple .

7 -ansyer but for diSposition in the light of the national purposes —

~ which ‘an enclave. serves. If Congress speaks, state .powér. is of ><

law of the state in which there is a federal site as foreign there

exclusive. But short of such: Congressional . assertion of over-

riding authority, themphrase ‘ ‘exclusive jurisdiction” more often -

confounds than solves problems due to our fedgral system. __

It is certainly an irrelevant-factor in the legal equation before us. .

For i in neither the Pennsylvania nor the California case is the power

of Congress \or of appropriately exercised military authority ealled

into question. \. As to Pennsylvania, the Court has found that neither

Congressional } islation nor discernible legislative policy immu-

nied a government contractor from state regulation. Of course,

‘if Congressional policy, howsoever expressed, authorized the

Quartermaster to enter into sueh»a contract in. disregardg of

locak milk price control legislation, the contractor would be

immune from obedience to local. requirements. Nor has con-

troll:ag assertion of military. authority to disregard logad price

control been found. There is no suggestion that Congress or the

oArmy has a policy regarding the purchase of milk for soldiers sta-

tioned in California which differs from that in Pennsylvania.» State

Frezulation, we have held in the case of Per ynsylvania, ‘‘ imposes, no

sites in California which have. been leased*to the Government, -like

the Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, or to sites where the

sfate has reserved concurrent jurisdiction, like those in the Dravo

and Mason canéa, supra, or - federal —— where oneal

Johnston. su Dr

°y

Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal. | 5

" within’ the confines of California the United States is engaged in

a great variety of activities: “The federal territory within the

_ state is so fragmented that there | may be several federal -islands

within a single marketing area,-- If: they are citadels of immunity ©

from state jurisdiction, they are also exceptional segments in areas |

that are otherwise subject to that farisdiction. They stand out like

_ colored ‘pins onthe map of California, and range from military ©

_-‘Teservations to soldiers’ homes, from court houses to penitentiaries,

_ from post effices to Indian reservations, from national pa to re-

gional dams.’’. 19 Cal. 2d 818, 828.

. €an.it be’ that the considerations of policy which resulted ¢

finding that neither the Constitution - ‘nor Congressional pet

her appropriate military regulation enabled the-Army .contracting

‘officer in Pennsylvania, in supplying milk-to the soldiers sta- .

tioned in Pennsylvania, to free local dealers from the necessity of

complying with a social *meastire not unrelated to health and

deemed inaportant to the welfare of the people of Pennsylvania,

‘ are present in some parts of California and not in others? , And

must a junior contracting officer of the Quartermaster Corps: now

attempt to ascertain whether these considerations of policy do or .

‘do not - -apply, depending.-upon whet’ -r the particular enclave is j

within the ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction’’ of the federal Government—

&@ question so recondite, as sie cases show, thai it may he settled

“only by this Court after long travail?’ Is the: result to turn upon

the niceties’ of the law of sales and contracts? Suppose, ‘for )

*. ample that the negotiations ocetir and the contracts ‘are signed ‘4

» off Moffet, Field, byt delivery takes place there. Must inquiry ‘be y=

made as to where title has ‘*passed’’ and the sale eteninat’~ .

These are not far-fetched suppositions. They are the inevitable

practical consequences of making decision here depend ‘upon tech-

nicalities :of ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction’’=legal subtleties which may |

become relevant in dealing with prosecution for crime, devolution of

property, liability for torts, and the !ike, but which as a matter

of good sense surely are wholly irrelevant in defining the duty,

ef contracting officers of the United States in making coftfacts 3

in “the various States of the Uni where neither Congress | Seems

nor, the authoritative voice of the “Seay hee spoken: é Jan the ;

“absence of such assertion of superior authority, #tate laws sneh

_ as* those “here under consideration appfar,.as a niatter of | sound

" a a whether the federal territory

e ee

9 . ‘ faked

.

ee

“6 Pacific Coast Dairy; Inc. vs. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal.

" éneysted within a state. be held on long or short’ term lease or be

. owned by the Gov ernment on ‘whatever terms ‘of cession may have ’

been imposed. -

"We are not dealing ‘here with the satteabsbe of- Congress, shout

which there can ‘be no controversy, but with ‘the authority of

Government contracting officers. It is surely the pelicy of neither

Congress nor the Army that such authority should vary from state

~ to state or from post to post within the same state, -On the con-

trary, there is every reason for assuming that, in-the matter here

involved, uniformity throughout. the land is deemed an, essential -

- element of the national policy. Since, as the Court holds in the

Pennsylvania ease, the national interest is furthered rather than |

impaired by requiring the Quartermaster. at the Indiantown Mili-

tary Reservation to observe the Pennsylvania Milk Control Law,

there is every reason why the Quartermaster at Moffet Field should

_ likewise observe the similar California law. And since he. should

_ observe the state lav’ California has-a-right to insist that the milk

dealer licensed by it_should not participate’ i in a violation of the

law-of his state, by license from which he does business. ~~

exe 4

, "eS, shige

& ow

oe)

“. ‘ <7

. ee. oe . 0

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

a

wee No. 275.—Ocronen Tem, ip4e,

_Pacifie Coast Daiiy, Ine, Appellant, a a ARR ne Shigaiain |

ar — 8. . a

+ Department of “Agricaltore’-of ‘the f Calif of the. State et

State of California, et al. eam. :

{Mareh 1, O82 kG Fe eG

7 . f { a a.

’Mr. Justice Gainer, dissenting. am

I dissent.for reasons stated in concurrence in’ Penn Dairies, Inc.

v. Milk Control Commission, — U. S, —_ (No. 399 this Term).

‘The fact that Moffett Field is a federal enclave instead of a lease-

_hold does not: justify denying California the power to protect the

public health by requiring milk dealers selling to the United States

to receive a minimum price, a power which we have today held that ~

Pennsylvania possesses. True, Congress is given the power ‘‘to «

_ exereise exclusive legislation’ over federal areas such as Moffett -

Field, (Constitution,.Art. I; § 8, el. 17), ‘but that does not neces-

sarily mean that the States, no matter what their interest or need,

are absolutely without power to enact: legislation, not inconsistent

‘with Congressional | policy ‘or Constitutional dictates, which will

- apply ih some measure to those areas which are within their boun- in

daries. “Before holding that this clause invalidates important state

legislation like that now before-us, especially at a time when fr {- ”

‘eral: activities. are greatly expanding and’yast. areas are. being

acquired within the States by the federal government, the, Feason-

. .ableneas. and necessity of such a decision should be thoughtfully

examined. I

_. We derive mich’ of ovr strength aa\e nation from our dual

system of federal government. To promote the harmonious work-

: ing. of that system the general clauses of the Constitution which

broadly delineate the boundaries of state and national power should

be construed by appraising the respective state and gore ar

terests involved and striking a balance which gives appropriate ™

recognition to the legititnate concerns. of each government, Since _.

those boundaries are not absolutes, the question necessarily is one *

%

2° Pacific Coast ‘Dairy, Tne. Vs. Dept. of Agriculture of * Pal.

of reasonableness and degree. Cf, Holittes, J., “dissenting in Pan-

handle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 Y. & 213; 222, and again in Springer

Cd PHNippine Islands, 277 U. S. 189, 209-210. This is the method

which we have. applied in testing state regulationgpf interstate _

conimerce,' and it should govern the construction of the ‘‘exelusive —

legislatiori’’ clause. If @ state is aéting in matters normally. within

its Competence, with which it. ia ‘especially equipped to deal, to .

achieve important governm iental ends such as the protection of the

public health and welfare’ or the maintenance of orderly marketing’

- -eonditions, the effects of its action should be allowed to extend. into

federal areas within. its boundaries unless inconsistent with an act

of Congtess or the provisions or necessaty Muplications of the Con- -

stitution. This formula_ allows the States to carry out impor-.

tant programs which must: be of_state-wide application to be ef-

fective and adequately recognizes the paramount character of

federal power. Since we have held the comparable Pennsylvariia

statuté does not contravene any act of ‘Congress or the Constitn-

tion (Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission, supra), the -

instant California legislation satisfies this test

atsolutely exciusory,? and no convincing reason has been advanced

' why the nature of the federal power is such that it demands that

-all state legislation adopted . subsequent to the acquisifion of, a

enclave must have no applfcation in the area. In waging war

under modern conditiofs it is essential that state and national,

military and civilian authdrities, work together as a unit, eaci

1 While ix is Congress th:* is given the power to regulaf® eommerce among

the States, some state regulation of that commerce is permissible. ‘‘ When

_ Congress has ‘not exerted its power under the Commerce Clause, and state

whieh does’ ‘pot -defeat the national] purpose,

clave until @ltered by Congres StewarS& Co. v. Sadrakula, ‘309 U. 8. 94 -

tion of matters of local: concern, is so related to interstate commer *

that it also operates as a reguMtion pt that commeftre, the reconciliation of |

the pewer thus granted - with-that to the state is to be attained by

the accommodation of the competing’ deniands of the state’ and national in-

terosts involved.’’- Parker rv. Brown, — U. 8. —, —, (No. 46 this Term, pp

14-15). State regulation is to be upheld if ‘‘upon a eunsideration of all the

relevaui facts and eircimstances jt appears that the matter is one -which may

appropriately be regulated in the interest of the safety, heaith and well being

. of local communities, and which, #@¢ause of its locdd character and the prae-

tical difficulties involved, lesan be _ dealt with by. Congress. ’’

Ibid, p. BS.

2 The egmmon sense view bas been taken that even though Congress has not

legislated to that effect, local law existing at the tithe an-.enclave is acquired,

‘remains in effect within the en-

And the States may quflify their tonsent to the federal government 's pur:

chase by retaining some measure of jarisdietion. " James v. .Dravo Covtracting

Ce., 302,U.'s. 134. at ;

} ge

y~ The ‘‘exchusi legislation”’ clause ha» Tay been regarded. as.

.

Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. vs. Dept. of Agriculture of Cal. °3

compl ting. the others. The state governments hhve functions

‘fiinetions pertaining to the publie health. ‘So long as there is no

ff erriding national purpeseto—be—served, nothing is gained by

- making federal_enclaves thorns in the side of the States and bar-

Indeed both: the federal. government and the nation as a whole

to per rm that are vital to the war program, ineluding those _

riers to the effective state- wide performance, of those functions. .

-sotution—of tegitimate matters of local concern is

thus thwarted and local animosity created for no purpose. A

arm to ignore local regulations such as the present one- is not only

fraught with danger. to the public health, but also may create a

public feeling of distrust which itself will hamper: the - military

effort. ie

fett Field to deny California the right to do as.it has sought to do

here,.the matter is of course at an end. But until Congress does

Rta it should be the aim of the federal. military procurement of-

fieers ta jobserve statutes such as this established by state action in

furtherance of the public health and welfaré, and otherwise . so

conduet their affairs as to promote public confidence and beg will,

If Congress exercises its paramount legislati#e power over. Mof-

disposition on the part of the federal government or its military