United States v. Doremus
| Decision Date | 03 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 367,367 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DOREMUS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Porter and Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 86-89 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Doremus was indicted for violating section 2 of the so-called Harrison Narcotic Drug Act. Act Dec. 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785 (6 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1916, § 6287g). Upon demurrer to the indictment the District Court held the section unconstitutional for the reason that it was not a revenue measure, and was an invasion of the police power reserved to the state. 246 Fed. 958. The case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704).
There are ten counts in the indictment. The first two were treated by the court below as sufficient to raise the constitutional question decided. The first count in substance charges that: Doremus, a physician, duly registered, and who had paid the tax required by the first section of the act, did unlawfully, fraudulently, and knowingly sell and give away and distribute to one Ameris a certain quantity of heroin, to wit, five hundred one-sixth grain tablets of heroin, a derivative of opium, the sale not being in pursuance of a written order on a form issued on the blank furnished for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The second count charges in substance that: Doremus did unlawfully and knowingly sell, dispense and distribute to one Ameris five hundred one-sixth grain tablets of heroin not in the course of the regular professional practice of Doremus and not for the treatment of any disease from which Ameris was suffering but as was well known by Doremus, Ameris was addicted to the use of the drug as a habit, being a person popularly known as a 'dope fiend,' and that Doremus did sell, dispense, and distribute the drug, heroin, to Ameris for the purpose of gratifying his appetite for the drug as an habitual user thereof.
Section 1 of the act (section 6287g) requires persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or cocoa leaves or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative or preparation thereof, to register with the collector of internal revenue of the district his name or style, place of business, and place or places where such business is to be carried on. At the time of such registry every person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, sells, distributes, or gives away any of the said drugs is required to pay to the collector a special tax of $1 per annum. It is made unlawful for any person required to register under the terms of the act to produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away any of the said drugs without having registered and paid the special tax provided in the act.
Section 2 (section 6287h) provides in part:
'(a) To the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or venterinary surgeon regularly registered under this act in the course of his professional practice only: Provided, that such physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon shall keep a record of all such drugs dispensed or distributed, showing the amount dispensed or distributed, the date and the name and address of the patient to whom such drugs are dispensed or distributed, except such as may be dispensed or distributed to a patient upon whom such physician, dentist or veterinary surgeon shall personally attend; and such record shall be kept for a period of two years from the date of dispensing or distributing such drugs, subject to inspection, as provided in this act.
'(b) To the sale, dispensing, or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs by a dealer to a consumer under and in pursuance of a written prescription issued by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this act: Provided, however, that such prescription shall be dated as of the day on which signed and shall be signed by the physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon who shall have issued the same: And provided further, that such dealer shall preserve such prescription for a period of two years from the day on which such prescription is filled in such a way as to be readily accessible to inspection by the officers, agents, employees, and officials...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Five Gambling Devices, Labeled In Part Mills and Bearing Serial Nos 593 8212 221, Etc United States v. Denmark United States v. Braun
...U.S. 432, 67 S.Ct. 1283, 91 L.Ed. 1585; United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 68 S.Ct. 331, 92 L.Ed. 297. 10 United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493; Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600; Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 57 S......
-
United State v. Kahriger
...banks); McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 59, 24 S.Ct. 769, 777, 49 L.Ed. 78 (tax on colored oleomargarine; United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493 and Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600 (tax on narcotics); Sonzinsky v. United Stat......
-
Rieder v. Rogan
...Pacific R. Co. (1915) 240 U. S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, L. R. A. 1917D, 414, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; United States v. Doremus (1919) 249 U. S. 86, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493. See, also, Franklin Process Co. v. Hoosac Mills Corporation (D. C. Mass. 1934) 8 F. Supp. By section 21 (a)......
-
Untermyer v. Anderson
...sufficiently long to insure that the tax will not be evaded by anticipating the passage of the act. Compare United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 94, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493. In taxation, as well as in other matters, 'the law allows a penumbra to be embraced that goes beyond the outl......
-
Midwest Gaming Win Reinforces Division Between Police And Taxing Powers
...United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919) the Supreme Court held that a tax law "may not be declared unconstitutional, because its effect may be to accomplish another purpose as well as the raising of revenue." That other purpose besides raising revenue was found to be absent when, on Au......
-
Brief for the petitioners: Gonzales v. State of Oregon *.
...19151919, 26J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 231,231-232 (2001). See, e.g., United States v. Webb, 249 U.S. 96 (1919); United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (15) The parts of the 1970 Act specific to the treatment of narcotics addiction were superseded by the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, Pub. L.......
-
Recycling Is Rubbish: Reinvent, Realign, and Restructure U.S. Material Management
...Taxes , https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6627.pdf (rev. Jan. 2022) [hereinafter Form 6627 ]. 220. See United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 93 (1919): [T]he fact that other motives may impel the exercise of federal taxing power does not authorize the courts to inquire into that subject. If......
-
Whether physician-assisted suicide serves a "legitimate medical purpose" under the Drug Enforcement Administration's regulations implementing the Controlled Substances Act.
...Government," "[i]ncidental regulation of such practice by Congress through a taxing act" may be permitted); United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 93-94 (1919). (30) Moore, 423 U.S. at 139. (31) Cf. Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. Martinson, 256 U.S. 41 (1921) (state law regulating physicians'......
-
The drug court response: issues and implications for justice change.
...in United States v. Doremus, bore a reasonable relation to a legitimate power of Congress to levy excise taxes); United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 93 (1919) (addressing the prosecution of a doctor who dispensed heroin to an addict in violation of the Act and upholding the constitutiona......