1920.

KENNINGTON v. PALMER.

Interstate Commerce Commission v., Cas. 1917D, 973; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 167 U. S. 505, 42 L. ed. 254, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 896; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. ed. 935, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 405, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 666; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 42, 48 L. ed. 868, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 33 L. ed. 985, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 224, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon, 253 U. S. 287, 64 L. ed. 908, P.U.R.1920E, 814, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 64 L. ed. 596, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commission, 249 U. S. 424, 63 L. ed. 687, P.U.R.1919D, 459, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 345; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U. S. 210, 53 L. ed. 150, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. 347, 57 L. ed. 1510, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961; United States v. American Woolen Co. 265 Fed. 404; Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U. S. 3, 60 L. ed. 114, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 48 L. ed. 317, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206, 64 L. ed. 862, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission, 251 U. S. 396, 64 L. ed. 323, P.U.R.1920C, 579, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183; Northern P. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 595, 604, 59 L. ed. 735, L.R.A.1917F, 1148, P.U.R. 1915C, 277, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Conley, 236 U. S. 605, 59 L. ed. 745, P.U.R.1915C, 293, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437.

The Lever Law is unconstitutional, especially the departmental interpretation thereof in Mississippi, because violative of the 5th Amendment, in

(1) Taking private property for private use without due compensation;

(2) Depriving appellants of liberty and property without due process of law.

State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 20 L.R.A. 257, 50 Am. St. Rep. 443, 31 S. W. 782;| State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 58 L.R.A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1100; Vann v. Edwards, 135 N. C. 661, 67 L.R.A. 464, 47 S. E. 784; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 396; Block v. Schwartz, 27 Utah, 387, 65 L.R.A. 311, 101 Am. St. Rep. 971, 76 Pac. 22, 1 Ann. Cas. 550; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 596, 61 L. ed. 1343, L.R.A. 1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann.

S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545,
Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; New York L. Ins.
Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 374, 62 L. ed.
780, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas.
1918E, 593; United States v. E. C.
Knight Co. 156 U. S. 1, 39 L. ed. 325, 15
Sup. Ct. Rep. 249; Kidd v. Pearson, 128
U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 346, 2 Inters. Com.
Rep. 232, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6; McFarland
v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 241 U. S.
79, 60 L. ed. 899, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498;
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight
Asso. 166 U. S. 320, 41 L. ed. 1020, 17
Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Shaffer v. Carter, 252
U. S. 37, 64 L. ed. 445, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep.
221; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries
& Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64 L.
ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Denver
v. Denver Union Water Co. 246 U. S.
191, 62 L. ed. 661, P.U.R.1918C, 640, 38
v. Des Moines, 238 U. S. 153, 59 L. ed.
Sup. Ct. Rep. 278; Des Moines Gas Co.
1244, P.U.R.1915D, 577, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep.
811; Home Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Los
Angeles, 227 U. S. 278, 57 L. ed. 510,
33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 312; Ex parte Milligan,
4 Wall. 121-127, 18 L. ed. 295-297;
148 U. S. 336, 37 L. ed. 471, 13 Sup. Ct.
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States,
Rep. 622; McCrary v. United States, 195
U. S. 61, 49 L. ed. 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep.
769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; United States v.
Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 61 L. ed. 746, 37
Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Hamilton v. Ken-
tucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251
U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep.
20 Wall. 662, 22 L. ed. 461; Cole v. La
106; Citizens' Sav. & L. Asso. v. Topeka,
Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 28 L. ed. 896, 5 Sup.
v. St. Bernard Min. Co. 196 U. S. 252,
Ct. Rep. 416; Madisonville Traction Co.
49 L. ed. 462, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251;
ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Fallbrook
Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 64 L.
41 L. ed. 369, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56.
Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112,

The Lever Law is unconstitutional, esthereof, because violative of the fundapecially the departmental construction mental guaranties vouchsafed by the 6th Amendment.

Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co. 198 U. S. 247, 49 L. ed. 1031, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 637; Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon, 253 U. S. 287, 64 L. ed. 908, P.U.R.1920E, 814, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 64 L. ed. 596, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. State Public Utility Commission, 249 U. S. 424, 63 L. ed. 687, P.U.R. 1919D, 459, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 345; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 Ú. S. 210.

34

529

Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 49| L. ed. 937, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115, 14 L. ed. 75; United States v. Rus- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 sell, 13 Wall. 623, 627, 629, 20 L. ed. | U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474-476; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 431. 121, 18 L. ed. 295.

upon the act by reason of the failure of complainants to conform to the prices fixed by the fair-price commissioners. A mere departmental ruling, order, or regulation cannot be made the basis of a criminal prosecution, unless expressly so provided by statute.

United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677, 36 L. ed. 591, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 764; United States v. Maid, 116 Fed. 650.

Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for defendants in

error:

The Lever Act, as amended, does not take private property within the meaning of the constitutional provision

and because the opinion in the Cohen
Case has conclusively settled that they
were well founded, it follows that the
court below was wrong, and its decree
must be and it is reversed, and the case
remanded for further proceedings in con-
formity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

against taking such property without [102] JOHN E. KINNANE, due compensation.

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 124, 24

United

States Attorney, Appt.,

V.

(No. 376.)

L. ed. 77, 83; Hamilton v. Kentucky DETROIT CREAMERY COMPANY et al. Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141.

When the Act of October 22, 1919, was passed, Congress was in full possession of its war powers.

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 163, 64

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plff. in
Err.,

V.

BEN. B. SWARTZ. (No. 377.)

L. ed. 194, 202, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plff. in
Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264,
281, 282, 64 L. ed. 260, 266, 267, 40 Sup
Ct. Rep. 141.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

Err.,

The appellants, dealers in wearing ap-in United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Comparel in the city of Jackson, Mississippi, pany, ante, 516. filed their bill in the court below against the attorney general and subordinates charged by him with administrative du- Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. ties under § 4 of the Lever [101] Act, to enjoin the enforcement against them of provisions of that section. Their right to relief was based upon averments as to the unconstitutionality of the assailed provisions of the section, not only in substance upon the contentions which we have this day considered and disposed of in the L. Cohen Grocery Co. Case (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298), but upon other grounds as well.

Note. On decisions under the Lever Act- see notes to Mossew v. United States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemical Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059.

On continuance of constitutional guaranties during war or insurrection-see note to West Virginia ex rel. Mays v. Brown, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 996.

1 Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 61 Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Hammer v. L. ed. 1336, L.R.A.1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas.

Without passing upon the question of constitutionality, the court dismissed the bill for the reason that the complainants had an adequate remedy at law, and the correctness of the decree of dismissal is the question now before us on direct ap-1918E, 724; Hamilton v. Kentucky Dispeal.

As it is no longer open to deny that the averments of unconstitutionality which were relied upon, if well founded, justified equitable relief under the bill,

tilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64

L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Jacob 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Ft. Smith & W. Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206, 64 L. ed. 862, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526.

WO WRITS of Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan to review judgments quashing indictments for charging excessive prices for necessaries. Affirmed.

See same case below, 264 Fed. 845. The facts are stated in the opinion. Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant and plaintiffs in error.

consequent absence from it of all standard of criminality. The enforcement of said provision was therefore permanently enjoined, and, upon this appeal, the sole issue raised by the government is whether the court erred in holding the provision of the statute in question to be void for repugnancy to the Constitution. That it did not so err is fully established by the opinion this day announced in the L. Cohen Grocery Case, No. 324 (255 U. S. 81, ante, 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298), and therefore it is our duty to affirm.

The two other cases, Nos. 377 and 378, are likewise so controlled. Both were

indictments for selling potatoes [104] at prices which were alleged to be unjust Mr. Charles E. Hughes argued the and unreasonable, in violation of the recause, and, with Mr. William L. Car-enacted 4th section of the Lever Act, penter, filed a brief for appellees and defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

In the first of the above cases the Creamery Company and others, appellees, filed their bill in the court below [103] against the United States attorney and the members of the "Federal Fair Price Committee" for an injunetion to restrain prosecutions against them for selling milk at alleged unjust and unreasonable rates or charges, in violation of the 4th section of the Lever Act, as re-enacted in 1919 [October 22, 1919, 41 Stat. at L. 297, chap. 80], on the ground, among others, that the section was repugnant to the Constitution because of its vagueness, and because it failed to provide a standard of criminality.

and in both cases the indictments were quashed because of the unconstitutionality of the section, upon the grounds stated by the court in the Creamery Case, No. 376, and they are both here at the instance of the government, because of alleged reversible error committed in so doing. It follows, for the reasons just stated and those expounded in the L. Cohen Grocery Case, that the action below in all three cases must be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandeis concur in the result.

Mr. Justice Day took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

C. A. WEED & COMPANY, Appt.,

V.

Attorney.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 104-106.)

This case is governed by the decision in United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Company, ante, 516.

The United States attorney, after challenging in his answer the right to STEPHEN T. LOCKWOOD, United States restrain the performance by him of his official duties, admitted that, in its advisory capacity, the said Price Committee had fixed what it had deemed to he a fair price for the sale of milk, and that he intended, in the discharge of his official duty, to act upon such advice as the basis for prosecutions where such price was exceeded, and, asserting the constitutionality of the section, and the want of merit in the grounds upon which Argued October 19 and 20, 1920. Decided it was assailed, prayed the dismissal of the bill.

A temporary injunction issued, and the case having been submitted on the pleadings without proof, the court, stating that the sole question involved was whether the provision in question of § 4 of the Lever Act was constitutional, decided that it was not, because of its vagueness and uncertainty, and of the

[No. 407.]

February 28, 1921.

Note. On decisions under the Lever Act-see notes to Mossew V. United States, 11 A.L.R. 1265, and Standard Chemicals & M. Corp. v. Waugh Chemical Corp. 14 A.L.R. 1059.

On continuance of constitutional guaranties during war or insurrection-see note to West Virginia ex rel. Mays v. Brown, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 996.

1920.

WEED & CO. v. LOCKWOOD.

105

APPEAL from the District Court of Com. 318; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet.

United States for the Western
District of New York to review a decree
which dismissed the bill in a suit to en-
join a criminal prosecution for charging
Re-
excessive prices for necessaries.
versed.

See same case below, 264 Fed. 453.
The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Simon Fleischmann argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Edward L. Jellinek, Martin Clark, James O. Moore, and John W. Ryan, filed a brief for appellant:

Sections 1 and 4 of the Lever Act, as amended, are so vague and indefinite as to be violative of the 6th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and are therefore void.

International Harvester Co. v. Ken

tucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34
Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky,
234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 924; United States v. Brewer,
139 U. S. 278-288, 35 L. ed. 190-193, 11
Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Chicago & N. W. R.
Co. v. Dey, 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. Com.
Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Tozer v. United
States, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed.
917; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad
Commission, 19 Fed. 679; Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209,
59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; United
States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. ed.
563; Czarra v. Medical Supers. 25 App.
D. C. 443; Hocking Valley R. Co. v.
United States, 127 C. C. A. 285, 210 Fed.
735; United States v. Capitol Traction
Co. 31 App. D. C. 599, 19 Ann. Cas. 68.
The provisions of the Lever Act pro-
hibiting the sale of necessaries for any
unjust or unreasonable rate or charge
are inoperative and unenforceable in the
absence of regulations and orders made
by the President as to such necessaries

as it is desired to control.

People ex rel. Cayuga Nation v. Land Office Comrs. 207 N. Y. 48, 100 N. E. 735; Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. 248, 13 L. ed. 125; 12 C. J. Const. Law, p. 864, § 365 and numerous cases there cited.

The provisions of the Lever Act prohibiting the sale of necessaries at unjust or unreasonable prices are unconstitutional, even as a war measure.

Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 319, 41 L. ed. 1020, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 5 L.R.A. 559, 22 N. E. 670; 2 Kent,

627, 657, 7 L. ed. 542, 553.

Section 4 of the Lever Act is invalid in that it deprives dealers in wearing apparel of property without due process of law by denying to them the equal protection of the laws.

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; International Harvester Co. v. MisL.R.A. (N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; souri, 234 U. S. 199, 58 L. ed. 1276, 52 Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 697, 34 L. ed. 816, 818, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 L. ed. 599, 601, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 60; Willoughby, Const. pp. 837-844; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 24, 25, 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B,

713.

A suit in equity with a decree for a permanent injunction against the United States attorney is proper, where he is seeking to enforce a criminal statute which is unconstitutional, or is tranand property rights scending his authority under a valid

statute,
threatened.

are

Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligott, 170 C. C. A. 487, 259 Fed. 525; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. ed. 714, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligott, 170 C. C. A. 487, 259 Fed. 321; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Municipal Gas Co. v. lic Service Commission, 225 N. Y. 89, 121 N. E. 772, P.U.R.1919C, 364; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, 64 L. ed. 260, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 46 L. ed. 808, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Waite v. Macy, 246 U. S. 606, 62 L. ed. 892, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 395.

Pub

Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

An indictment having been returned against the appellant in the court below, for violating the 4th section of the Lever Act by selling wearing apparel at an unjust or unreasonable rate or charge, it filed its bill in that court, praying that the United States attorney be enjoined

533