Facts
- Dewitt was indicted in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under § 29 of the Internal Revenue Act of Mar. 2, 1867.
- The indictment alleged that Dewitt offered for sale in Detroit petroleum-based illuminating oil that was inflammable below the statutory fire-test of 110°F.
- The indictment did not allege tax evasion, nonpayment, or any revenue-related violation; it alleged only that the sale was “contrary to law.”
- Dewitt demurred, and the circuit judges certified questions to the Supreme Court after dividing on the statute’s constitutionality and whether the charged facts stated a federal offense.
Issues
- Whether Congress had constitutional authority to prohibit and criminally punish purely intrastate sales of petroleum-based illuminating oil failing the 110°F fire-test.
- Whether § 29 of the 1867 Act was a valid exercise of federal power (including taxing, commerce, or necessary-and-proper authority) when applied within a state.
- Whether the indictment stated an offense under any valid federal law.
Decision
- The Court held that § 29, as applied to Dewitt’s alleged conduct, was not a valid constitutional law of the United States.
- The Court characterized § 29 as a police regulation directed to public safety in internal state trade, not as a measure enforcing federal taxation.
- Because Congress lacks a general police power within state territory, the statute could not constitutionally operate on a purely intrastate sale in Michigan.
- The Court concluded the facts alleged did not constitute an offense under any valid federal law, so the indictment could not stand.
Legal Principles
- Congress has no general police power to regulate the internal trade and business of the states; federal criminal prohibitions must be anchored in an enumerated power.
- A statute placed in a revenue act is not sustained by the taxing power when, as applied, it operates as a safety regulation without a meaningful nexus to tax assessment or tax enforcement.
- The Commerce Clause does not authorize federal regulation of purely intrastate trade merely because the subject matter affects public safety; absent a valid enumerated-power basis, such regulation remains for state law.
- A regulation of this type may operate only where Congress has exclusive legislative authority (e.g., the District of Columbia), not within state limits.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated § 29 as applied to an intrastate sale of low fire-test illuminating oil in Michigan, holding that Congress could not impose a general public-safety criminal rule within a state without a sufficient connection to an enumerated federal power.