1. A writ of error sustained, following
Eureka Pipe Line Co.
v. Hallanan, ante, 257 U. S. 265. P.
257 U. S.
280.
2. Natural gas, collected and purchased by a pipeline company
within a state and moving through its pipes, and the pipes of other
companies to which it sells it, in continuous streams destined
beyond the state, is a subject of interstate commerce, the
transportation of which the state may not tax. P.
257 U. S.
280.
3.
Held, that the interstate character of the gas so
destined was not affected by the right of transporting companies to
divert to local destinations or by the fact that smaller quantities
for local delivery were commingled with the other, and the
proportions between the two were not precisely fixed. P.
257 U. S.
281.
87 W.Va. 396 reversed; petition for certiorari dismissed.
Error to a judgment sustaining a tax in a suit by the plaintiff
in error to restrain its enforcement.
See the preceding
case,
ante, 257 U. S. 265.
Page 257 U. S. 278
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity that seeks to restrain the application
to the plaintiff of the same statute that has been
Page 257 U. S. 280
considered in
Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, ante,
257 U. S. 265.
Acts of Extraordinary Session, 1919, c. 5. The statute taxes the
transportation of natural gas as well as of oil by pipelines, and
the plaintiff Gas Company makes the same objection that was made by
the oil company in the former case to the constitutionality of the
act, as well as others that it will not be necessary to discuss.
The two cases were heard together, and were disposed of in a single
opinion by the Supreme court of Appeals. The circuit court of the
state held the statute void, but he supreme court, as before,
upheld it as valid with regard to intrastate business "as above
defined," and defined the plaintiff's business as intrastate. The
plaintiff drew in question the validity of the statute "as
construed and applied,"
Merchants National Bank of Richmond v.
Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, and
took this writ of error. It also filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari. For the reasons given in the
Eureka case, the
writ of error will be entertained, and the petition for certiorari
dismissed.
The case was heard upon the pleadings and a stipulation as to
facts. It appears that the plaintiff gathers and purchases natural
gas, mostly in West Virginia, and distributes it through its pipes
which extend to or beyond the state line in various places and also
connect with the pipes of other companies that extend beyond the
state. The total amount dealt with by the plaintiff in the year
ending July 1, 1919, was 54,973,588 M cubic feet, of which all but
a little over a million M. cubic feet was gathered in West
Virginia. There were sold directly to consumers in West Virginia
11,590,656 M. cubic feet, a little over 10,000,000 M cubic feet to
consumers in other states, and the remainder was sold to four
connecting companies. It is admitted that the gas sold to one of
these, the Ohio Fuel Supply Company, is transported in interstate
commerce, so that that may be laid on one side. Another of them is
the Columbia Gas & Electric Company. Ninety-nine
Page 257 U. S. 281
percent of the gas received by it is carried out of the state
and sold, yearly. A third is the Pittsburgh-West Virginia Gas
Company, which yearly disposes of eighty-eight percent of the gas
in the same way. The fourth is the Hope Natural Gas Company, which,
in like manner, carries sixty-seven percent of the gas bought from
the plaintiff out of the state and sells it there.
In short, the great body of the gas starts for points outside
the state and goes to them. That the necessities of business
require a much smaller amount destined to points within the state
to be carried undistinguished in the same pipes does not affect the
character of the major transportation. Neither is the case as to
the gas sold to the three companies changed by the fact that the
plaintiff, as owner of the gas, and the purchasers, after they
receive, it might change their minds before the gas leaves the
state, and that the precise proportions between local and outside
deliveries may not have been fixed, although they seem to have
been. The typical and actual course of events marks the carriage of
the greater part as commerce among the states, and theoretical
possibilities may be left out of account. There is no break, no
period of deliberation, but a steady flow ending, as contemplated
from the beginning, beyond the state line.
Ohio R. Co.
Commission v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101,
225 U. S. 108;
United States v. Reading Co., 226 U.
S. 324,
226 U. S. 367;
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U.
S. 105,
247 U. S. 113.
We have mentioned only such facts as are sufficient for our
decision, and have not noticed other objections urged against the
law. What we have stated seems to us enough to condemn it as
applied to this case.
Decree reversed.
Petition for certiorari dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS dissents.
MR. JUSTICE CLARKE also dissents as to the jurisdictional
question.