Welton v. Missouri
23 L. Ed. 347, 91 US 275, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1361 (1876)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that imposes a license tax on persons who peddle goods that are the growth, product, or manufacture of other states, while exempting those who sell goods produced within the state, is a discriminatory regulation of interstate commerce and violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- A Missouri statute defined a "peddler" as anyone going from place to place to sell goods, wares, or merchandise which are not the "growth, produce, or manufacture" of Missouri.
- The statute required these peddlers to obtain and pay for a license.
- The statute did not require a license for persons selling goods that were the growth, product, or manufacture of Missouri in the same manner.
- Welton was a dealer in sewing machines.
- The sewing machines Welton sold were manufactured outside the State of Missouri.
- Welton traveled from place to place within Missouri selling these out-of-state sewing machines without the license required by the statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Welton was indicted in a Missouri circuit court (the trial court of first instance) for the offense of peddling without a license.
- He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars.
- Welton appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction.
- Welton then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that requires a license to peddle goods manufactured outside the state, but requires no license for peddling goods manufactured within the state, violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
Yes. The Missouri statute unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce. The court reasoned that a license tax required for the sale of goods is effectively a tax upon the goods themselves. By imposing this tax only on goods originating from outside Missouri, the statute creates a direct burden on interstate commerce and discriminates against the products of other states. The power to regulate commerce among the states is vested exclusively in Congress for subjects that are national in character and require uniform regulation. The very purpose of this grant of power was to prevent such protectionist and discriminatory state legislation. The court held that Congress's inaction on the subject is equivalent to a declaration that interstate commerce shall remain free and untrammeled, a principle now known as the Dormant Commerce Clause. Therefore, the Missouri law, by imposing a burden on out-of-state goods that it does not impose on domestic goods, encroaches upon this exclusive federal power and is void.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It firmly establishes that state laws which discriminate on their face against out-of-state goods in favor of local economic interests are unconstitutional. The decision solidified the principle that the Commerce Clause has a 'negative' or 'dormant' aspect that limits state power to regulate commerce even when Congress has not legislated on the matter. This precedent has been instrumental in preventing economic protectionism among the states and ensuring the United States operates as a single, unified national market.
