Joseph Patsone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Decision Date19 January 1914
Docket NumberNo. 38,38
Citation232 U.S. 138,34 S.Ct. 281,58 L.Ed. 539
PartiesJOSEPH PATSONE, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Marcel A. Viti fpr plaintiff error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 139-142 intentionally omitted] Mr. John C. Bell, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Messrs. William M. Hargest and W. H. Lemon for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was an unnaturalized foreign-born resident of Pennsylvania, and was complained of for owning or having in his possession a shotgun, contrary to an act of May 8, 1909. Laws 1909, No. 261, p. 466. This statute makes it unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident to kill any wild bird or animal except in defense of person or property, and 'to that end' makes it unlawful for such foreign-born person to own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle; with a penalty of $25 and a forfeiture of the gun or guns. The plaintiff in error was found guilty and was sentenced to pay the above-mentioned fine. The judgment was affirmed on successive appeals. 231 Pa. 46, 79 Atl. 928. He brings the case to this court on the ground that the statute is contrary to the 14th Amendment and also is in contravention of the treaty between the United States and Italy, to which latter country the plaintiff in error belongs.

Under the 14th Amendment the objection is two fold; unjustifiably depriving the alien of property, and discrimination against such aliens as a class. But the former really depends upon the latter, since it hardly can be disputed that if the lawful object, the protection of wild life (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600), warrants the discrimination, the means adopted for making it effective also might be adopted. The possession of rifles and shotguns is not necessary for other purposes not within the statute. It is so peculiarly appropriated to the forbidden use that if such a use may be denied to this class, the possession of the instruments desired chiefly for that end also may be. The prohibition does not extend to weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defense. So far, the case is within the principle of Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499. See further, New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 53 L. ed. 75, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10; Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 57 L. ed. 184, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44.

The discrimination undoubtedly presents a more difficult question. But we start with the general consideration that a state may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented, and that if the class discriminated against is or reasonably might be considered to define those from whom the evil mainly is to be feared, it properly may be picked out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not matter. The question is a practical one, dependent upon experience. The demand for symmetry ignores the specific difference that experience is supposed to have shown to mark the class. It is not enough to invalidate the law that others may do the samething and go unpunished, if, as a matter of fact, it is found that the danger is characteristic of the class named. Lindsley v. National Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 80, 81, 55 L. ed. 369, 378, 379, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 160. The state 'may direct its law against what it deems the evil as it actually exists without covering the whole field of possible abuses.' Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 160, 57 L. ed. 164, 169, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 270, 57 L. ed. 212, 216, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 587, 44 L. ed. 899, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788. See further Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 54 L. ed. 921, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 84, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676. The question therefore narrows itself to whether this court can say that the legislature of Pennsylvania was not warranted in assuming as its premise for the law that resident unnaturalized aliens were the peculiar source of the evil that it desired to prevent. Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 29, 57 L. ed. 1050, 1052, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692.

Obviously the question, so stated, is one of local experience, on which this court ought to be very slow to declare that the state legislature was wrong in its facts. Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572, 583, 57 L. ed. 971, 977, 33 Sup. Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
303 cases
  • Katzev v. County of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1959
    .......         In Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 165, 64 S.Ct. 438, 441, 88 L.Ed. 645, the ...687, 124 P. 427; [see, also,] Patsone v. [Commonwealth of] Pennsylvania (1914), 232 U.S. 138, 144, 34 S.Ct. ......
  • Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 21, 1914
    ...... to the state laws or government. [67 Fla. 377] Ensign v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 227 U.S. 592, 33 S.Ct. 321, 57 L.Ed. 658; Kinkaid v. ...R. Co. v. Melton,. 218 U.S. 36, 30 S.Ct. 676, 54 L.Ed. 921; Patsone v. Commonwealth of Pennyslvania, 232 U.S. 138, 34 S.Ct. 281, 58 L.Ed. ......
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 26, 1934
    ......276, 55 So. 398; L. & N. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U.S. 36;. Patsone v. Commonwealth, 232 U.S. 138; Sec. 33,. Const. of Miss. 1890, as amended ......
  • Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • June 16, 1931
    ......Cas. 909; Atchison, T. & S.F. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96, 19 S. Ct. 609, 43 L. Ed. 909; Patsone v. Penn., 232 U.S. 138, 33 S. Ct. 281, 58 L. Ed. 539; Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 27 S. Ct. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...49 L.Ed.2d 599 (1976), 1125 Patane, United States v., 542 U.S. 630, 124 S.Ct. 2620, 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004), 1020 Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 34 S.Ct. 281, 58 L.Ed. 539 (1914), Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 456 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 21557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982),......
  • State Water Ownership and the Future of Groundwater Management.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...(water); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) (game birds), overruled by Hughes, 441 U.S. 322; see also Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914) (prohibiting foreign-born residents from hunting wild game); McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 (1876) (imposing restrictions on noncitizen......
  • The Equal Protection Clause
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Part IV: The Final Cause Of Constitutional Law Sub-Part Three: Civil War Amendments And Due Process Generally
    • January 1, 2007
    ...id. at 1153 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id. at 1157 (Thomas, J., joined by Scalia, J., dissenting). [313] Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914); McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 [314] Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. 195 (1915). [315] Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923); Hauenstein v......
  • The pioneer spirit and the public trust: the American rule of capture and state ownership of wildlife.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 35 No. 4, September 2005
    • September 22, 2005
    ...held constitutional as applied to Indians on reservation despite claim of preemption by federal treaty); Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914) (state prohibition against hunting by resident aliens upheld over due process and equal protection challenges); Lacoste v. Dep't of Conservat......
  • 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