256 U.S. 450 (1921), 523, United States v. Yuginovich

Docket Nº:No. 523
Citation:256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043
Party Name:United States v. Yuginovich
Case Date:June 01, 1921
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 450

256 U.S. 450 (1921)

41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043

United States

v.

Yuginovich

No. 523

United States Supreme Court

June 1, 1921

Argued March 10, 1921

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Syllabus

1. Congress, under the taxing power, may tax intoxicating liquor notwithstanding their production is prohibited, and the fact that it does so for a moral end as well as to raise revenue is not a constitutional objection. P. 462.

2. Section 3257 of the Revised Statutes, which, for the purpose of protecting the revenues, made it an offense for a distiller to defraud, or attempt to defraud, the United States of a tax on the spirits distilled by him, and penalized the offense by forfeiture of the distillery, etc., and heavy fine and imprisonment, was superseded as respects persons manufacturing spirits for beverage purposes, by § 35, Title II, of the National Prohibition Law, which imposes a double tax and an additional penalty of $500 or $1,000 only, thus covering practically the same acts and inflicting a lighter penalty. P. 463.

3. The repealing effect of this section of the later act is determined in full recognition of its declaration that the act shall not "relieve any person from any liability, civil or criminal, heretofore or hereafter incurred under existing laws," but in the light also of settled principles governing the construction of penal statutes, the Eighteenth Amendment, and the provisions of the act itself making unlawful the possession of intoxicating liquors, or property designed for the manufacture thereof, and providing for their destruction. P. 463.

4. Section 3279 of the Revised Statutes, requiring distillers of spirits to exhibit a sign "Registered Distillery" and punishing violations by fine, § 3281, making it an offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to carry on the business of a distiller without giving bond, and § 3282, punishing in like manner the making of mash in any building other than a distillery authorized by law, were also superseded by the National Prohibition Law, insofar as concerns the production of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. P.464.

266 F. 746 affirmed.

Page 451

Error to review a judgment of the district court sustaining a motion to quash, and a demurrer to, an indictment. The facts are stated in the opinion, post, 457.

Page 457

DAY, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act. 34 Stat. 1246. The indictment is in four counts.

Page 458

The first count, based on § 3257 of the Revised Statutes, 6 Comp.Stats. § 5993, charges the defendants with unlawfully engaging in the business of distillers within the intent and meaning of the internal revenue laws of the United States, and that in fact they did distill spirits subject to the internal revenue tax imposed by the laws of the United States, and did defraud and attempt to defraud the United States of the tax on said spirits. The second count, based on § 3279 of the Revised Statutes, 6 Comp.States § 6019, charges that the defendants failed to keep on the distillery conducted by them any sign exhibiting the name or firm of the distiller, with the words "Registered Distillery," as required by statute. The third court, based on § 3281 of the Revised Statutes, 6 Comp.Stats. § 6021, charges the defendants with carrying on the business of distilling within the intent and meaning of the revenue laws of the United States without giving the bond required by law. The fourth count, based on § 3282 of the Revised Statutes, 6 Comp.Stats. § 6022, charges the defendants with unlawfully making a mash fit for distillation in a building not a distillery duly authorized by law.

The defendants interposed a motion to quash the indictment upon the grounds that the acts of Congress under which the same was found were repealed before the finding of the indictment, and that the acts charged to have been committed by them were after the date upon which the Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and the Volstead Act became effective. Defendants also filed a demurrer to the indictment on practically the same grounds. The motion to quash and the demurrer were sustained by the district court. 266 F. 746.

The sections of the Revised Statutes may be summarized as follows: Section 3257 makes it an offense to defraud or attempt to defraud the United States of a tax

Page 459

upon spirits distilled by one carrying on the business of a distillery, provides for forfeiting the distillery and the distilling apparatus and all spirits found in the distillery or on the distillery premises, and subjects the offender to a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, and imprisonment of not less than six months or more than three years. Section 3279 requires distillers to exhibit on the outside of their place of business a sign with the words "Registered Distillery." A violation of this section subjects the offender to a fine of $500. Section 3281 makes it an offense to carry on the business of a distiller without having given bond. For such offense the penalty is a fine from $1,000 to $5,000 and imprisonment not less than six months or more than three years. Section 3282 makes it penal to make or permit mash to be made in any building other than a distillery authorized by law. A violation of this section subjects the offender to a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, and imprisonment of not less than six months or more than two years.

These statutes have long been part of the federal internal revenue legislation, and were passed under the authority of the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States. At the time of their enactment, it was legal, so far as the federal government was concerned, to manufacture and sell ardent spirits for beverage...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
148 practice notes
  • 309 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1957), 8394, State v. Davidson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Febrero 1957
    ...89 Mont. 479, 300 P. 273. And the repeal is effectuated whether the punishment is reduced or increased. United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L.Ed. 210; People v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104.' Page 217 See also State v. Teninty, ......
  • 8 N.Y.2d 77, Albertson's Claim, In re
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 26 Mayo 1960
    ...certainly where its reason for existence is that which is above stated. Taxation does not make it legal (United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 462, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043; United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358; United States v. One Ford Coupe, 272......
  • 10 F.2d 973 (E.D.Pa. 1926), United States v. McConnell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 4 Febrero 1926
    ...Mr. Justice McReynolds cited the title of the National Prohibition Act and the following language used in United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043: 'It is a comprehensive statute intended to prevent the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage ......
  • 404 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1965), 529, State v. Pinball Machines
    • United States
    • Alaska Supreme Court of Alaska
    • 19 Agosto 1965
    ...L.Ed. 475, 479 (1955); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358, 361 (1922); United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 462, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043, 1047 (1920); Pepple v. Headrick, 64 Idaho 132, 128 P.2d 757, 762 (1942); Hunter v. Mayor and Council of Te......
  • Free signup to view additional results
148 cases
  • 309 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1957), 8394, State v. Davidson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Febrero 1957
    ...89 Mont. 479, 300 P. 273. And the repeal is effectuated whether the punishment is reduced or increased. United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L.Ed. 210; People v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104.' Page 217 See also State v. Teninty, ......
  • 8 N.Y.2d 77, Albertson's Claim, In re
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • 26 Mayo 1960
    ...certainly where its reason for existence is that which is above stated. Taxation does not make it legal (United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 462, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043; United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358; United States v. One Ford Coupe, 272......
  • 10 F.2d 973 (E.D.Pa. 1926), United States v. McConnell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 4 Febrero 1926
    ...Mr. Justice McReynolds cited the title of the National Prohibition Act and the following language used in United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043: 'It is a comprehensive statute intended to prevent the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage ......
  • 404 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1965), 529, State v. Pinball Machines
    • United States
    • Alaska Supreme Court of Alaska
    • 19 Agosto 1965
    ...L.Ed. 475, 479 (1955); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358, 361 (1922); United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 462, 41 S.Ct. 551, 65 L.Ed. 1043, 1047 (1920); Pepple v. Headrick, 64 Idaho 132, 128 P.2d 757, 762 (1942); Hunter v. Mayor and Council of Te......
  • Free signup to view additional results