state law to govern the sale of the original package only where the sales of all liquor were forbidden, this object could have found ready expression, whilst, on the contrary, the entire context of the act manifests the purpose of Congress to give to the respective States full legislative authority, both for the purpose of prohibition as well as for that of regulation and restriction with reference to the sale in original packages of intoxicating liquors brought in from other States."

2d. Conceding, it is argued, that the Missouri statute attached to the liquor after delivery at its destination in Missouri, nevertheless as the burdens which the statute imposed were of such a character as to affect traffic in the article and hence operate to deter shipments into Missouri, therefore the statute must be treated as if it bore upon the liquor while still in transit as a subject of interstate commerce. This proposition simply amounts to contending that the Wilson Act should be disregarded, since to enforce it would give the States power to regulate interstate traffic in liquor. If when a State has but exerted the power lawfully conferred upon it by the act of Congress its action becomes void as an interference with interstate commerce because of the reflex or indirect influence arising from the exercise of the lawful authority, the result would be that a State might exert its power to control or regulate liquor, yet if it did so its action would amount to a regulation of commerce and be void. And this would be but to say at one and the same time that the power could and could not be exercised. But the proposition would have a much more serious result, since to uphold it would overthrow the distinction between direct and indirect burdens upon interstate commerce by means of which the harmonious workings of our constitutional system has been made possible.

3d. It is further insisted that, as the Missouri law is denominated in its text as an inspection law, and does not provide an adequate inspection, and besides imposes a burden beyond the cost of inspection, the law is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States when tested by previous

198 U. S. BROWN, J., The CHIEF JUSTICE, BREWER and DAY, JJ., dissenting.

decisions of this court determining when particular inspection laws amounted to a regulation of commerce, citing Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, and Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. New Hope, 192 U. S. 55. These cases, however, simply considered state laws which operated upon interstate commerce. To apply them to the Missouri law necessarily involves deciding that the malt liquors to which that law applied had not ceased to be articles of interstate commerce; and, therefore, again, merely disregards the Wilson Act and the decisions of this court concerning it. Indeed, the whole argument upon which the entire case of the plaintiff in error proceeds rests upon this fallacious assumption, since it admits on the one han l the validity of the Wilson Law, and yet seeks to take this case out of the reach of its provisions by distinctions which have no foundation in reason, unless it be that that law is to be disregarded or held to be unconstitutional. Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, with whom the CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE DAY concurred, dissenting.

The opinion of the court is put upon the ground that the Wilson Act subjects liquors shipped from one State into another, after their arrival at their destination, to the laws of the State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers; and that, as an inspection law is a law enacted in the exercise of its police powers, the law in question is within the act; and we are consequently precluded from inquiring whether such. law is a legitimate exercise of the police powers or a mere revenue law to which the name of an inspection law is given for the purpose of obviating the difficulty, under the state constitution, of upholding it as a revenue measure. It may be conceded at once that if the law in question be a legitimate inspection law it necessarily follows that, as it was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State, it applies to foreign liquors "to the same extent and in the same manner

BROWN, J., The CHIEF JUSTICE, BREWER and DAY, JJ., dissenting. 198 U. S.

as though such liquors or liquids had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced in original packages or otherwise." The opinion practically concedes that the act must, if constitutional, be supported as an inspection law, passed under the police power of the State; and such was the position taken by the Supreme Court of Missouri. It was admitted in that case, both by the majority and minority judges, that the act could not be supported as a revenue measure, because in conflict with the constitution of the State.

To determine the question whether it can be supported as an inspection law it is necessary to consider at some length the nature of its provisions.

The agreed statement of facts shows that the plaintiff manufactures in the State of Wisconsin ten different kinds or grades of beer and malt liquors, each kind being separately manufactured and requiring special treatment; that it ships into the State of Missouri annually not less than 15,000 barrels of malt liquors, of thirty-one gallons each, of the aggregate value of $100,000; that there are a large number of domestic manufacturers of malt liquor in the State of Missouri, whose annual productions amount to over 2,250,000 barrels of beer of the aggregate value of $12,250,000, of which 1,275,000 are sold within the State; that there are other manufacturers outside of the State standing in the same position as the plaintiff, who annually ship into the State not less than 165,000 barrels of the aggregate value of $1,725,000, beside that imported from abroad; that plaintiff is licensed to carry on business in Missouri; that such business consists of shipping into the State, for the purposes of selling therein or reshipping therefrom, the product of its manufacture in Wisconsin; that in the usual course of its business it is compelled to maintain large warehouses in the State, as well as an office, as a necessary adjunct to the conduct of its business; that it maintains no manufactory in Missouri, and that it disposes of its beer in the original packages in which it is shipped.

198 U. S. BROWN, J., The CHIEF JUSTICE, BREWER and DAY, JJ., dissenting.

There are insuperable difficulties in the way of the maintenance of this act as an inspection measure.

To inspect, as defined by Webster, is to examine, to view closely and critically, especially in order to ascertain quality and condition, to detect errors, etc.

The object of the act is declared by section 4 to be to exclude the use of any substance, material or chemical, in the manufacture of malt liquors other than pure hops, or pure extract of hops, or pure barley, malt or wholesome yeast or rice. So far as beer manufactured within the State is concerned, the inspection is made, or at least may be made, State v. Bixman, 162 Missouri, 1, 34, of the ingredients of the beer in the mash tub and before the beer is actually brewed. The inspector goes to the brewery and makes his test by taking a sample of the mash of the beer there fermenting, and, although thousands of gallons may be made from one mash, a single inspection is sufficient. With respect to beer manufactured outside of the State, section 5 requires that the consignee of the beer shall notify the inspector, who shall be furnished with a sworn affidavit, subscribed by an officer authorized to administer oaths, from the manufacturer thereof or other reputable person having actual knowledge of the composition of said beer or malt liquors, that no material other than pure hops, or the extract of hops, or pure barley, malt or wholesome yeast or rice, was used in the manufacture of the same. "Upon the receipt of said affidavit the inspector shall inspect and label the packages containing said beer or malt liquors, for which services he shall receive like fees as those imposed upon the manufacturers of beers and malt liquors in this State."

It is true this section seems to require that upon receipt of such affidavit the inspector shall inspect and label the packages. But similar words used in section 7 with regard to domestic beer were interpreted by the Supreme Court in State v. Bixman, 162 Missouri, 1, as requiring only an inspection of the mash at the brewery, since the actual inspection of the beer VOL. CXCVIII-3

BROWN, J., The CHIEF JUSTICE, BREWER and DAY, JJ., dissenting. 198 U.S.

would require the opening of each package, or at least a sample package, which would practically ruin the contents. As it is impossible to suppose that the legislature should have contemplated that the inspectors should visit breweries outside. of the State and inspect the mash, or that they should open the packages after their receipt in the State, and thus spoil the beer, it would seem that the inspectors have no alternative but to accept the affidavit as a basis of their inspection. This is said to be the manner in which the law is practically administered. Indeed, the agreed facts show that the beer involved in this case was inspected while still in the hands of the plaintiff, that the packages were never opened, but the affidavit was accepted as a sufficient compliance with the act.

While this may be the only inspection practicable, it is really no inspection at all, since it is dependent entirely upon the veracity of the person making the affidavit. There is no power given to these inspectors to investigate the truth of the statements contained in these affidavits, except, possibly, by tasting or analyzing the beer. There is no penalty provided for making a false affidavit, nor can the State proceed against the manufacturer who is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. There is no assurance that the affidavit, which may be made in the State of manufacture as well as in Missouri, has any relation to the particular shipment to which it is sought to apply it, and there is no power given even to open the boxes in which bottled liquors purport to be enclosed, to examine their contents. The object of inspection laws is to require such examination of the thing inspected as will insure to the public a safe and wholesome article. Obviously to secure this the inspection must be made by officers appointed for that purpose; at least it cannot be delegated, as it virtually is in this case, to the manufacturer. The requirement of an affidavit, and the acceptance of this in lieu of an actual inspection, make the affiant, who is the manufacturer or his agent, the sole judge of the fact whether the liquor contains only the ingredients allowed by law. We cannot treat this as a bona fide inspec