Toomer v. Witsell/Concurrence Rutledge

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
903410Toomer v. Witsell — ConcurrenceWiley Blount Rutledge
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Black
Rutledge

United States Supreme Court

334 U.S. 385

Toomer  v.  Witsell

 Argued: Jan. 13, 14, 1948. --- Decided: June 7, 1948


Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, concurring.

I agree with the result and the Court's opinion, subject to one interpretation of qualification of the opinion's Fifth part.

The requirement that owners of boats fishing in the maritime belt dock at a South Carolina port, unload, pack, and stamp their catch (for tax purposes), before 'shipping or transporting it to another state,' is not merely a regulation of commerce burdening it in the sense of materially increasing the shipper's costs. Many valid regulations of commerce do this. The regulation in question goes farther. It is aimed in terms directly at interstate commerce alone, and thus would seem to be discriminatory in intent and effect upon that commerce. Moreover, in my opinion, it is of such a character that, if applied, for all practical purposes it would block the commerce.

Since it was exactly that sort of state regulation the commerce clause was designed to strike down, I agree that this one cannot stand. The same considerations I also think would be applicable to nullify the license fees levied against nonresidents, since upon the record their transportation of catches would seem to be exclusively in interstate commerce, or practically so.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse