Rider v. United States

Citation149 F. 164
Decision Date05 November 1906
Docket Number2,395.
PartiesRIDER v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

R. G Davies (G. W. Murphy, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

William G. Whipple, U.S. Atty., for defendant in error.

Before VAN DEVANTER and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District judge.

PHILIPS District Judge.

Upon a sworn complaint by the United States District Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, made before J. T O'Hair, United States Commissioner for said district, the plaintiff in error, Dr. Thomas B. Rider, was arrested on the 18th day of May, 1905. This affidavit charged upon information and belief that said Rider, on the 16th day of May, 1905, was a practicing physician at Hot Springs, Ark in the Western Division of said district; that he was not then and there a registered physician as provided by the act of Congress entitled 'An act conferring jurisdiction upon United States Commissioners over offenses committed on a portion of the Hot Springs Mountain reservation, approved April 20, 1904' 33 Stat. 187, c. 1400 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1905, p. 365), and was not then and there authorized to issue a permit to any patient or person to take a bath in any of the bathhouses on said reservation; and that said Rider knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully issued a permit to one Mattie Hancock, setting out the permit in haec verba; that said permit consisted of directions to the said Mattie Hancock for taking a bath at the Superior Bath House; that in pursuance thereof she applied to said bathhouse and attempted to bathe therein; which bathhouse was then and there situated on said reservation.

The warrant issued by said O'Hair commanded the marshal to arrest and bring before him the said Rider. Instead of the marshal taking the prisoner before said O'Hair he took him before Edgar A. Nickels, who styled himself 'a United States Commissioner for said district'; by whom he was tried and sentenced, the language of the judgment being:

'From the evidence of the said witnesses, it appearing to me, the commissioner, that the laws of the United States have been violated as charged in the complaint, and that there is a probable cause shown to believe the defendant guilty of the alleged offense, it was ordered that he pay a fine of $25."

From this judgment Rider appealed to the United States District Court for said district, where, on rehearing, he was again found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and costs. To reverse this judgment, Rider prosecuted his writ of error to this court.

At the threshold of every judicial proceeding arises the question of jurisdiction of the tribunal taking cognizance of the cause to proceed to judgment. 'The question of jurisdiction is self-asserting in every case. It arises although the litigants are silent. Even their consent cannot authorize cognizance if fundamental grounds of jurisdiction are absent. ' Yocum v. Parker, 130 F. 771, 66 C.C.A. 80. The jurisdiction of said Nickels, before whom Rider was tried, is challenged by him in this court. Authority for his action is predicated by the United States Attorney, on the act of Congress approved April 20, 1904, c. 1400, 33 Stat. 187 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 365), entitled 'An act conferring jurisdiction upon United States Commissioners over offenses committed in a portion of the permanent Hot Springs Mountain reservation, Ark.' The first section of this act designates and defines the Hot Springs Mountain reservation, and limitations. The second section declares that said reservation 'shall constitute a part of the Eastern United States Judicial District of Arkansas, and the District and Circuit Courts of the United States in and for said district shall have jurisdiction of all offenses committed within said boundaries. ' The third section makes provision for the protection of property, etc., within this reservation. The fourth section declares:

'That any person who shall, except in compliance with such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may deem necessary, and which he is hereby authorized and directed to make, enter or attempt to enter upon said described tract, take, or attempt to take, use or attempt to use, bathe in, or attempt to bathe in water of any spring located thereon, or without presenting satisfactory evidence that he or she (provided he or she is under medical treatment) is the patient of a physician duly registered at the office of the superintendent of the Hot Springs reservation as one qualified, under such rules which the Secretary of the Interior may have made or shall make, to prescribe the waters of the Hot Springs, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings: Provided, That no physician who shall engage in the solicitation of patronage through the medium of drummers, or otherwise, shall be or remain thus registered: And provided further, that if any person so bathing, or attempting to bathe, or so entering, or attempting to enter upon the described tract, shall have the permit of a physician, such physician shall be liable to the penalties of this section, unless he be regularly registered; and such person shall not be liable to the penalties of this section, unless it shall be made to appear that he knew, or had reason to believe, that the physician giving him such permit was not regularly registered.'

The fifth section (33 Stat. 188 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. p. 367)) applies to the punishment of offenses under municipal ordinances of the city of Hot Springs and the laws of the state of Arkansas. Section 6 of the act, which presents the principal controversy in this case, is as follows:

'That such commissioner shall have power, upon sworn complaint, to issue process in the name of the United States for the arrest of any person charged with the doing, otherwise than in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, of any act with reference to the matters which the Secretary of the Interior in section four of this act is authorized to regulate, or in violation of such rules and regulations, or in violation of any provision of this act, or with any misdemeanor or other like offense the punishment provided for which does not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars to try the person thus charged, and if found guilty, to impose the penalty prescribed. In all cases of conviction an appeal shall lie from the judgment of said commissioner to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The said United States District Court shall prescribe rules of procedure and practice for said commissioner in the trial of cases and with reference to said appeals.'

As this section does not designate or create 'such commissioner,' naturally enough the word 'such' would refer to some preceding section of the act defining the commissioner and prescribing the manner of his creation and the extent of his authority. There is not a reference to him or his office in any creative provision of the statute. It is conceded in the brief of counsel for the government that unless this casus omissus in the active power of the provisions of the act can be aided and eked out by reference to its title, there is nothing to designate who 'such commissioner' is or how he derives his authority. Conceding that the American doctrine is that the title may constitute a part of the legislative act, and that preambles may be referred to to discover the mind of the Legislature, where the statute is obscure or ambiguous, it is as correct law to-day as when uttered by Mr. Justice Field, in Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. (U.S.) 107, 18 L.Ed. 518, that the title 'is still considered as only a formal part; it cannot be used to extend or to restrain any positive provisions contained in the body of the act. It is only when the meaning of these is doubtful that resort may be had to the title, and even then it has little weight. It is seldom the subject of special consideration by the Legislature.'

There is no authority to support the broad proposition that the title may be so read into the body of the act as to supply the absence of a substantive declaration essential to the creation of power and authority. Most certainly the title of this act cannot be resorted to for the purpose of showing that 'such commissioner' is any United States Commissioner, regardless of where located, when the whole trend of the enactment plainly indicates that it was the mind and purpose of Congress that this special jurisdiction was to be exercised by a special commissioner, who, from the inception to the close of the proceeding, was to exercise functions and powers quite apart from those conferred upon the well-known class of United States Commissioners. As the subject-matter is purely local, confined to the small territory reservation, and to a new and singular character of offenses, in the absence of express language to that effect in the enacting provisions it is incredible that Congress contemplated that this extraordinary and responsible jurisdiction might be exercised by any United States Commissioner in the District of Arkansas or elsewhere. A careful analysis of the whole act contradicts such contention.

In the latter part of said section 6 it is declared that:

'The said United States District Court shall prescribe rules of procedure and practice for said commissioner in the trial of cases and with
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Hollingsworth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 14, 2015
    ...a misdemeanor case under such a statute, neither the defendant nor the court saw fit to even raise the issue. See Rider v. United States, 149 F. 164, 166–67, 170 (8th Cir.1906) (vacating defendant's misdemeanor conviction because he was tried before general commissioner, instead of commissi......
  • State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. Hostetter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1935
    ... ... this court alone, not counting the courts of appeals and ... decisions of other states, cited and followed this rule.) In ... Ex parte Bedard, 106 Mo. 627, this court, following Ex ... doctrine against any repeal by implication. " Implied ... repeals are not favored ." United States v ... Noce, 268 U.S. 613, 69 L.Ed. 1119; Frost v ... Wenie, 157 U.S. 46, 39 L.Ed ... v. Dillon, ... 252 U.S. 348, 64 L.Ed. 611. Phillips, J., in Rider v ... United States, 149 F. 164, 79 C. C. A. 114. (2) Nor did ... the Schedule of 1924 repeal ... ...
  • Hunter v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 8, 1921
    ... ... Maxwell, Fed. Cas. No ... 15,750; United States v. Shepard, Fed. Cas. No ... 16,273; United States v. Waller, Fed. Cas. No ... 16,634; United States v. Baugh (C.C.) 1 Fed. 785; ... United States v. Tureaud (C.C.) 20 F. 621; ... United States v. Cobb (D.C.) 43 F. 570; Rider v ... United States, 149 F. 164, 79 C.C.A. 112; United ... States v. Camden Iron Works (D.C.) 150 F. 214, and 158 ... F. 561, 85 C.C.A. 585; Rosencranz v. United States, ... 155 F. 38, 83 C.C.A. 634; Renigar v. United States, ... 172 F. 646, 97 C.C.A. 172, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 683, 19 Ann.Cas ... ...
  • Botts v. Southeastern Pipeline Co
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1940
    ...the body of it as to supply the absence of a substantive provision essential to the conferring of power and authority." Rider v. United States, 8 Cir., 149 F. 164 (1). This latter ruling is especially apropos here, since we are in like manner concerned with a question as to grant of power. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT