194 U.S. 445 (1904), 262, Lloyd v. Dollison

Docket NºNo. 262
Citation194 U.S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062
Party NameLloyd v. Dollison
Case DateMay 16, 1904
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 445

194 U.S. 445 (1904)

24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062

Lloyd

v.

Dollison

No. 262

United States Supreme Court

May 16, 1904

Argued April 28-29, 1904

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Syllabus

The first eight articles of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States have reference to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the states.

The power of the state over the liquor traffic is such that the traffic may be absolutely prohibited, and that being so, it may be prohibited conditionally, and a local option law does not necessarily deny to any person equal protection of the laws because the sale of liquor is by the operation of such a law a crime in certain territory and not in other territory.

This Court will not anticipate the judgment of the state court by deciding what persons are qualified to act as jurors before the trial and one who is to be tried cannot complain until he is made to suffer.

It is not necessarily a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law to commit to the judgment of a court the amount of punishment for illegal liquor selling.

The Ohio local option law regulating the sale of liquor is not unconstitutional as depriving one attempting to sell liquor in that, if the state in which such sale is prohibited of his liberty or property without due process of law or denying him the equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiff in error was committed to custody upon a warrant for violating the law of Ohio called the "Beal Local Option Law." He petitioned in habeas corpus for his discharge to one of the judges of the state having jurisdiction. On hearing, he was remitted to custody, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. This writ of error was then sued out. The question involved is the constitutionality of the law.

The facts constituting the violation of the law were alleged to be the unlawful selling and furnishing to one E. L. Scott, a resident of the City of Cambridge, six pints of beer, and with keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale,

Page 446

given away, and furnished for beverage purposes. The sale was not within any of the exceptions of the law.

In the petition for habeas corpus, it was alleged that plaintiff in error was arrested by a constable of the Township of Cambridge upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace in and for the Township of Center, Guernsey County, Ohio, which township is outside of the geographical boundaries of the City of Cambridge, where the violation of the law was claimed to have occurred.

That, by virtue of the arrest, plaintiff in error was committed to jail in the County of Guernsey, and there imprisoned by J. B. Dollison, the sheriff of the county.

MCKENNA, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petition alleged that the law violated the constitution of the state in certain particulars. We omit the allegations, as the supreme court of the state decided against their sufficiency, and its judgment is not open to our review.

Wherein the law offends the Constitution of the United States was expressed as follows:

It contravenes Section 1, Article XIV, of the Constitution of the United States in that it denies to this defendant and other persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law; it deprives said defendant and other citizens of their liberty and property without due process of law; it contravenes Article V of the Constitution of the United States; it contravenes Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, in that the accused cannot enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

Page 447

by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime is and shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, in this, to-wit, that said jury cannot be selected by any previously enacted law from the territorial district, to-wit, of the City of Cambridge, which district, and within which district alone, said crime, if any, is, was, and could have been committed.

All of these objections, however, are not open to the plaintiff in error to make. It is well established that the first eight articles of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States have reference to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the states. Ellenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31. Our consideration, therefore, must be confined to the contentions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Those contentions are that the Ohio statute denies plaintiff in error the equal protection of the law and deprives him of liberty and property without due process of law.

The first contention can only be sustained if the statute treat plaintiff in error differently [24 S.Ct. 705] from what it does others who are in the same...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP