Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO.

1920.

" etc.

:

engage in any discriminatory and unfair, in or with” merchandise, imports the
or any deceptive or wasteful, practice or tixing of compensation for services, rath-
device, or to make any unjust or unrea. er than the price at which goods are to
sonable rate or charge, in handling or be sold. It may refer to charges for
dealing in or with any necessaries; to buying, selling, hauling, handling, stor-
conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with age, or the like.
any other person, (a) to limit the facil- But the clause in question does not
ities for transporting, producing, har- stand alone. It forms a part of a sec-
vesting, manufacturing, supplying, stor- tion in which the question of prices is
ing, or dealing in any necessaries; (b) dealt with four times: once in the ini-
to restrict the supply of any necessaries; tial prohibition against destroying any
(c) to restrict distribution of any neces- necessaries for the purpose of enhancing
saries; (d) to prevent, limit, or lessen the price; a second time in the prohibi-
the manufacture or production of any tion of hoarding, defined as including a
necessaries in order to enhance the price withholding from market for the purpose
thereof; or (e) to exact excessive prices of unreasonably increasing or diminish-
for any necessaries; or to aid or abet the ing the price; a third time in the prohi-
aoing of any act made unlawful by this bition of a conspiracy to limit the
section. Any person violating any of production of necessaries in order to en-
the provisions of this section upon con- bance the price; and, finally, in the pro-
viction thereof shall be fined not exceed-hibition of a conspiracy “to exact
ing $5,000 or be imprisoned for not more excessive prices for any necessaries.” It
than two years, or both: Provided, seems to me clear, upon the plainest

principles of construction, that the For a definition of "hoarding," the change of phrase must be deemed to imsection refers to § 6 of the original act port a difference of purpose, and that (40 Stat. at L. 278, chap. 53, Comp. Stat. “to make any unjust or unreasonable § 3115}gg, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, rate or charge in handling or dealing in p. 184), which declares that necessaries or with any necessaries” must be taken shall be deemed to be hoarded, within to mean something else than the exacthe meaning of the act, when (inter alia) tion of an excessive price. It should be "withheld, whether by possession or un-[96] observed how closely it is coupled der any contract or arrangement, from with a cognate offense: "To engage in the market by any person for the pur- any discriminatory and unfair, or any pose of unreasonably increasing or di- deceptive or wasteful practice or device, minishing the price."

or to make any unjust or unreasonable The court holds that the words “to rate or charge in handling or dealing in make any unjust or unreasonable rate or with any necessaries.” Evidently the or charge in handling or dealing in or words "in handling or dealing,” etc., with any necessaries” are broad enough qualify "wasteful practice or device,” as to embrace the exaction of an excessive well as "unjust or unreasonable rate or price upon a sale of such [95] merchan-charge." dise. Why Congress should employ so That it is not altogether evident what unskilful and ambiguous a phrase for was intended to be included within "unthe purpose when it would have been just or unreasonable rate or charge in easy to express the supposed purpose in handling or dealing in or with any briefer and more lucid words, it is necessaries" may be conceded. So much difficult to understand. If the words the more reason for not extending the were to be taken alone, and without words by construction so as to make reference to the context, it might be criminal that which is not clearly within possible to stretch their meaning so as their meaning; and for not giving to to include the exaction of an excessive them a meaning which brings the act price. But to do this with a statute into conflict with the Constitution; and defining a criminal offense would, it for not expanding the unconstitutional seems to me, be inconsistent with estab- reach of the act, supposing that, even lished rules for construing penal stat- without the particular application now utes; not only so, but it would violate made of the quoted words, it would be the rule that a statute is not to be so repugnant to the fundamental law. construed as to bring it into conflict with It is to my mind plain that 4 was the Constitution, unless such construc- not intended to control the individual tion is imperatively required by its plain dealer with respect to the prices that he words. The construction adopted by the might exact, beyond prohibiting him court is not thus required. “To make a from destroying any necessaries for the rate or charge in handling or dealing purpose of enhancing the price, and from

523 v.

witholding them from the market for a ! (98) HARRY B. TEDROW, United States like purpose. So long as he acts alone,

Attorney, Appt., he is left uncontrolled except by the ordinary processes of competition, his own A. T. LEWIS & SON DRY GOODS COM. sense of fairness, and his own interest.

PANY, the Denver Dry Goods Company,

et al.
A conspiracy with others to exact ex-
cessive prices is an entirely different (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 98, 99.)
matter, and that is clearly prohibited.

This case is governed by the decision in
And this brings me to another point: United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Com-
Section 4 naturally divides itself into pany, ante, 516.
two parts: the first portion denounces a

(No. 357.) number of substantive offenses; the sec

Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided ond portion denounces a conspiracy to

February 28, 1921. commit any one of a number of offenses, but these do not in terms include any of A PPEAL from the District Court of the offenses specifically prohibited in the

the United States for the District of

Colorado to review a decree which enearlier [97] portion. This, as it seems to me, is significant. Section 37 of joined criminal prosecutions for chargthe Criminal Code (Act of March 4, / ing excessive prices for necessaries.

Affirmed. 1909, chap. 321, 35 Stat. at L. 1088, 1096, Comp. Stat. $$ 10,165, 10,201, 7

The facts are stated in the opinion. Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. pp. 396, 534) Solicitor General Frierson argued the makes it criminal for two or more per- cause and filed a brief for appellant: sons to conspire to commit any offense A controversy as to the proper conagainst the United States, if one or struction of a criminal statute does not more of them do any act to effect authorize an injunction against prosethe object of the conspiracy. Hence cutions under that statute. it was not necessary for Congress to Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. Mcdeclare in the Lever Act that a con- Elligott, 170 C. C. A. 487, 259 Fed. 525. spiracy to commit any of the offenses The exclusion from the act of farm defined in the first part of § 4 was pun- products in the hands of the producer ishable criminally. But it proceeded in is not an arbitrary and unconstitutional the latter part to declare that a conspir- classification. acy to do any one of certain other acts

Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. should be criminal. It seems to me too 220 U. S. 61, 78, 55 L. ed. 369, 377, 31 plain for argument that, under the cir: Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; cumstances, the inclusion in that part of Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 453, 59 the section of certain acts as forming L. ed. 1400, 1405, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; the object of a criminal conspiracy Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, amounts to a legislative declaration that, I 226 U. S. 157, 160, 161, 57 L. ed. 164, in the absence of conspiracy, those acts | 169, 170, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Mutual are not intended to be punished criminal- Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225, 235, ly. One of them is “to exact excessive 56 L. ed. 175, 179, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, prices for any necessaries.”

Ann. Cas. 1913B, 529; German Alliance Still further: Sections 14 and 25 of Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 58 L. the original act (40 Stat. at L. 281, 284, ed. 1011, L.R.A.1915C, 1189, 34 Sup. Ct. Comp. Stat. $S 31153 kk, 3115% 9, Fed. Rep. 612; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, pp. 187, 191), 199 U. S. 401, 411, 50 L. ed. 246, 250, specifically deal with the question of 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Ozan Lumber Co. official price-fixing of certain articles of

v. Union County Nat. Bank, 207 U. S. prime necessity,--wheat, coal, and coke, 251, 52 L. ed. 195, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; --and furnish additional evidence that, Heath & M. Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. in the framing of this act, when Con- S. 338, 354-356, 52 L. ed. 236, 243, 244, gress had price-fixing in mind and the 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; International Harregulation of "prices," it employed that simple term, and that it did not refer Note.-On decisions under the Lever to prices in the provision of § 4 upon Act-see notes to Mossew United which the indictment in this case rests. States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard

For these reasons, I regard it as un. Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemicnecessary to pass upon the question al Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059. whether that provision is in conflict with On continuance of constitutional the Constitution of the United States.

guaranties during war or insurrectionMr. Justice Brandeis concurs in this see note to West Virginia ex rel. Mays opinion.

v. Brown, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 996.

[ocr errors]

V.

1920.

[ocr errors]

Re

vester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 58 L. ed. 184, 188, 189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep.
210, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1281, 52 L.R.A. 104; Harriman v. Interstate Commerce
(N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Mis- Commission, 211 U. S. 407, 53 L. ed.
souri, K. & T. R. Co. v. May, 194 253, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115.
U. S. 267, 269, 48 L. ed. 971, 972, 24 No treaty was necessary to terminate
Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Williams v. Arkan- the war with Germany. It ended with
sas, 217 U. S. 79, 90, 54 L. ed. 673, 677, the signing of the armistice, which was
30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493, 18 Ann. Cas. 865; in effect a complete capitulation, and
Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 179, with the total destruction of the Im-
54 L. ed. 987, 990, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644; perial German Government,

against
Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial which alone we had been at war.
Mill. Co. 218 U. S. 406, 54 L. ed. 1088, 2 Oppenheim, Int. Law, p. 322; Phil-
36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 220, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. lipson, Termination of War & Treaties
59, 21 Ann. Cas. 815; Engel v. O'Malley, of Peace, p. 3; 7 Moore, Int. Law, p.
219 U. S. 128, 55 L. ed. 128, 31 Sup. Ct. 336.
Rep. 190; Provident Inst. for Sav. v. The power which Congress, in the en-
Malone, 221 U. S. 660, 55 L. ed. 899, 34 actment of the statute here in question,
L.R.A.(N.S.) 1129, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. attempted to exert, is not a war power
661; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 specifically granted, nor is the statute
U. S. 342, 357, 358, 60 L. ed. 679, 688, a law necessary and proper for carrying
L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370, into execution any such power.
Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Quong Wing v. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316,
Kirkendall, 223 Ú. S. 59, 56 L. ed. 350, 421, 4 L. ed. 579, 605; Hepburn v. Gris-
32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Griffith v. Con- wold, 8 Wall. 603, 614, 19 L. ed. 513,
necticut, 218 U. S. 563, 54 L. ed. 1151, 523; Broderick v. Magraw (McGlynn v.
31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132; Barrett v. In- Magraw) 8 Wall. 639, 19 L. ed. 531;
diana, 229 U. S. 26, 57 L. ed. 1050, 33 Rapier, 143 U. S. 110, 133, 36 L. ed. 93,
Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Keokee Consol. Coke 102, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 374; Kansas v.
Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 227, 58 Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 47, 51 L. ed. 956,
L. ed. 1288, 1290, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; 958, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655; Legal Tender
New York C. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 543, 20 L. ed. 287,
S. 188, 208, 61 L. ed. 667, 677, L.R.A. 309; Thompson v. Union P. R. Co. 9 Wall.
1917D, 1, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, Ann. 579, 588, 19 L. ed. 792, 797; Cherokee
Cas. 1917D, 629, 13 N. C. C. A. 943; Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co. 135
American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, U. S. 641, 657, 34 L. ed. 295, 302, 10
179 U. S. 89, 95, 45 L. ed. 102, 105, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 965; Employers' Liability
Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; St. John v. New York, Cases (Howard v. Illinois C. R. Co.)
201 U. S. 633, 50 L. ed. 896, 26 Sup. Ct. 207 U. S. 463, 52 L. ed. 297, 28 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 554, 5 Ann. Cas. 909.

Rep. 141; Second Employers' Liability In the ordinary acceptation of the Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & word, a dealer is one who both buys H. R. Co.) 223 U. S. 1, 48, 56 L. ed. and sells, and is thus to be distinguished 327, 344, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. from one who manufactures or produces, Ct. Rep. 169, 1 N. C. C. A. 875; United and sells only his own product.

States v. Spokane Dry Goods Co. 264 1 Words & Phrases, pp. 1222, 1223; Fed. 209; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 13 Cyc. 286.

U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct.
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and Clay-

Rep. 141. ton C. Dorsey argued the cause, and,

The war powers of Congress and of with Mr. Gerald Hughes, filed a brieť every other department and agency of for appellees:

the Federal government are, like its Where a statute is susceptible of two limitations imposed by other provisions

other powers, subject to the applicable constructions, by one of which grave and

of the Constitution. doubtful constitutional questions arise, and by the other of which such questions 18 L. ed. 281, 294, 297; Hamilton v.

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120, 125,
avoided, the duty of the court is
to adopt the latter.

Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. 251 U. S. 146, 156, 64 L. ed. 194, 198, 40
Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 408, Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Jacob Ruppert v.
53 L. ed. 836, 849, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; | Caffey, 251 Ü. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40
Union P. R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards Sup. Ct. Rep. 141.
Co. 231 U. S. 190, 200, 58 L. ed. 179, The act here in question is invalid
183, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101; Union P. R. and unconstitutional because it fails to
Co. Snow, 231 U. S. 204, 212, 213, I define with the requisite certainty the

525

[ocr errors]

are

V.

V.

offense thereby denounced. It there-, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, fore conflicts with articles V. and VI. of Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Caldwell v. Texas, the Amendments to the Constitution, in 137 U. S. 692, 697, 34 L. ed. 816, 818, 11 that it operates to deprive persons pro- Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Giozza v. Tiernan, tected by the Constitution of their lib- 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 L. ed. 599, 602, erty and their property without due 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; Davidson v. New process of law, and ignores the constitu- Orleans, 96 U. S. 101, 24 L. ed. 618; tional right of the accused to be in- Missouri P. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. formed of the nature and cause of the 512, 519, 29 L. ed. 463, 465, 6 Sup. Ct. accusation.

Rep. 110; Bank of Columbia v. Okely, United States v. L. Cohen Grocery 4 Wheat. 235, 244, 4 L. ed. 559, 561, 5 Co. 264 Fed. 218; Detroit Creamery Co. Enc. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 514; 6 R. C. L. v. Kinnane, 264 Fed. 845; United States 372, § 367; McGehee, Due Process of v. People's Fuel & Feed Co. 271 Fed. Law, p. 60; Wilson v. McDonnell, 265 790; Lamborn v. McAvoy, 265 Fed. 944; Fed. 432; Lappin v. District of ColumTozer v. United States, 4 Inters. Com. bia, 22 App. D. C. 68; Moses v. United Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; The Enterprise, States, 16 App. D. C. 428, 50 L.R.A. 1 Paine, 32, Fed. Cas. No. 4,499; United 532; United States ex rel. Kerr v. Ross, States v. Sharp, Pet. C. C. 118, Fed. 5 App. D. C. 241; Curry v. District of Cas. No. 16,264; United States v. Reese, Columbia, 14 App. D. C. 423; Stouten92 U. S. 214, 219, 23 L. ed. 563, 565; burgh v. Frazier, 16 App. D. C. 229, United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 48 L.R.A. 220; Terminal Taxicab Co. v. 288, 35 L. ed. 190, 193, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. Harding, 43 App. D. C. 120, 241 U. S. 538; Todd v. United States, 158 U. S. 252, 60 L. ed. 984, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 278, 282, 39 L. ed. 982, 983, 15 Sup. Ct. 583, P.U.R.1916D, 765, Ann. Cas. 1916D, Rep. 889; James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 765; Re Lowrie, 8 Colo. 499, 54 Am. 127, 142, 47 L. ed. 979, 983, 23 Sup. Rep. 558, 9 Pac. 489; Sears v. Cottrell, Ct. Rep. 678; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Ne- 5 Mich. 251; Millett v. People, 117 m. braska, 217 Ú. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 294, 57 Am. Rep. 869, 7 N. E. 631; Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; | Vanzant v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. 260; StratChicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Polt, ton Claimants Morris Claimants 232 U. S. 165, 58 L. ed. 554, 34 Sup. Ct. (Dibrell v. Lanier) 89 Tenn. 497, 12 Rep. 301; International Harvester Co. Ì.R.A. 70, 15 S. W. 87; Willoughby, v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. Const. pp. 873, 874. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. The business of dealing at retail in Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, wearing apparel is not such a public 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; American Seeding business as will justify or permit govMach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, ernmental regulation of rates, charges, 59 L. ed. 773, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; or prices therein. United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co. United States v. United States Steel 242 U. S. 208, 61, L. ed. 251, 37 Sup. Corp. 251 U. S. 417, 64 L. ed. 343, 8 Ct. Rep. 95; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. A.L.R. 1121, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293; Railway Commission, 19 Fed. 679; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 127, United States v. Louisville & N. R, Co. 21 L. ed. 394, 425; Hirsh v. Block, 176 Fed. 942; Louisville & N. R. Co. App. D. C. 11 A.L.R. 1238, 267 Fed. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 614; A. M. Holter Hardware Co. v. Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; United Boyle, 263 Fed. 134; Cooley, Const. Lim. States v. Capitol Traction Co. 34 App. 6th ed. p. 736; Budd v. New York, 143 D. C. 592, 19 Ann. Cas. 68; Czarra v. U. S. 517, 36 L. ed. 247, 4 Inters. Com. Medical Supers. 24 App. D. C. 251; 8 Rep. 45, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; Lochner R. C. L. p. 58, § 8.

v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 49 L. ed. 937, The statute in question is arbitrary 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; class legislation, and therefore does not Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, afford the due process of law guaranteed 52 L. ed. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 by the 5th Amendment.

Ann. Cas. 764; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 United States v. Armstrong, 265 Fed. U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, 683; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Terminal Taxicab 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Co. v. Kutz, 241 U. S. 252, 256, 60 L. Rep. 431; International Harvester Co. ed. 984, 987, P.U.R.1916D, 972, 36 Sup. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 215, 58 L. Ct. Rep. 583, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 765; ed. 1276, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 Federal Trade Commission v. atz, 253 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Brushaber v. Union U. S. 421, 64 L. ed. 993, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed. 493, 572.

The construction placed upon this Messrs. William A. Glasgow, Jr., and statute by the Department of Justice, Louis 0. Van Doren filed a brief as amici and the enforcement thereof as so con- curiæ: strued, necessarily operates to deprive Section 4 of the Act of August 10, the merchants of their property without 1917, as amended by the Act of October due process of law, in that they are 22, 1919, is unconstitutional and void, thereby denied the right to have the in that it fails to inform the accused of benefit of increments in value as to the the nature and cause of the accusation. articles in their stocks while held by United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. them in private ownership.

278, 288, 35 L. ed. 190, 193, 11 Sup. Ct. Den es dem. Murray v. IIoboken Land Rep. 538; United States v. Reese, 92 & Improv. Co. 18 How. 272, 276, 15 U. S. 214, 220, 23 L. ed. 563, 566; ChiL. ed. 372, 374; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, cago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 118 U. S. 357, 373, 30 L. ed. 222, 227, 744, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Raymond v. Chi- 866; Tozer v. United States, 4 Inters. cago Union Traction Co. 207 U. S. 20, Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; Louisville 52 L. ed. 78, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, 12 & N. R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 Ann. Cas. 757; Home Teleph. & Teleg. L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278, 287, S. W. 129; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 57 L. ed. 510, 515, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 312; Railroad Commission, 19 Fed. 679; RailCuyahoga River Power Co. v. Akron, road Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 240 U. S. 462, 60 L. ed. 743, 36 Sup. Ct. 336, 29 L. ed. 636, 646, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. Rep. 402; Green v. Louisville & Interur- 334, 388, 1191; International Harvester ban R. Co. 244 U. S. 499, 507, 61 Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. L. ed. 1280, 1285, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; American Ann. Cas. 1917E, 88; Chicago & N. W. Seeding Mach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. R. Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. S. 660, 59 L. ed. 773, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. Com. Rep. 325, 35_ Fed. 866; Reagan v. 456; Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, Farmers Loan & T. Co. 154 U. S. 362, 59 L. ed. 573, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; 409, 38 L. ed. 1014, 1027, 4 Inters. Com. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Wilcox S. 86, 53 L. ed. 417, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 52, 220; United States v. Armstrong, 265 53 L. ed. 382, 399, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1134, Fed. 683. 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; When the Constitution declares that Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. it is essential to the creation of crime by Shepard) 230 V. S. 352, 454, 57 L. ed. statute that the nature and cause of 1511, 1563, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 | the offense shall be clearly stated, this Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; constitutional safeguard is always in Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, force, and just as much in time of war 148 U. S. 312, 325, 37 L. ed. 463, 467, 13 | as in time of peace. Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Mississippi & R.

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 120, 121, River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 18 L. ed. 294, 295; Hamilton v. Ken403, 405, 410, 25 L. ed. 206, 207, 209; | tucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Wa-U. S. 146, 156, 64 L. ed. 194, 199, 40 ter Power Co. 229 U. S. 53, 76, 57 L.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 106. ed. 1063, 1080, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667. A penal statute is to be construed amended by the Act of October 22,

The Act of August 10, 1917, as strictly in favor of the one against whom the penalty is sought to be en- 1919, is unconstitutional

, in that it deforced. In the construction of a penal prives citizens of the equal protection statute it is well settled also that all of the law, and undertakes to deprive a reasonable doubts concerning its mean- person of liberty or property without ing ought to operate in favor of the re- due process of law. spondent.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 Harrison v. Vose, 9 How. 372, 378, 13 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. L. ed. 179, 182; Tiffany v. National Bank, 431; United States v. Armstrong, 265 18 Wall. 409, 410, 21 L. ed. 862, 863; Fed. 683. Bolles v. Outing Co. 175 U. S. 262, 265, 44 L. ed. 156, 157, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94;

Messrs. William D. Guthrie, Benjamin United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. F. Spellman, and Bernard Hershkopf 76, 95, 5 L. ed. 37, 43; Northern Securi- also filed a brief as amici curiæ. ties Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197,

For their contentions see their brief 358, 48 L. ed. 679, 709, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. as reported in United States v. L. Cohen 436.

Grocery Co. ante, 516.

« ForrigeFortsett »