Cohens v. Virginia

Citation5 L.Ed. 257,6 Wheat. 264,19 U.S. 264
Decision Date03 March 1821
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

JAMES NIMMO, for the Commonwealth.

And at this same Quarterly Session Court, continued by adjournment, and held for the said borough of Norfolk, the second day of September, eighteen hundred and twenty, came, as well the attorney prosecuting for the Commonwealth, in this Court, as the defendants, by their attorney, and the said defendants, for plea, say, that they are not guilty in manner and form, as in the information against them is alleged, and of this they put themselves upon the courtry, and the attorney for the Commonwealth doth the same; whereupon a case was agreed by them to be argued in lieu of a special verdict, and is in these words:

Commonwealth against Cohens—case agreed.

In this case, the following statement is admitted and agreed by the parties in lieu of a special verdict: that the defendants, on the first day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twenty, within the borough of Norfolk, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, sold to William H. Jennings a lottery ticket, in the lottery called, and denominated, the National Lottery, to be drawn in the City of Washington, within the District of Columbia.

That the General Assembly of the State of Virginia enacted a statute, or act of Assembly, which went into operation on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1820, and which is still unrepealed, in the words following.

No person, in order to raise money for himself or another, shall, publicly or privately, put up a lottery to be drawn or adventured for, or any prize or thing to be raffled or played for: And whosoever shall offend herein, shall forfeit the whole sum of money proposed to be raised by such lottery, raffling or playing, to be recovered by action of debt, in the name of any one who shall sue for the same, or by indictment or information in the name of the commonwealth, in either case, for the use and benefit of the literary fund. Nor shall any person or persons buy or sell, within this Commonwealth, any lottery ticket, or part or share of a lottery ticket, except in such lottery or lotteries as may be authorized by the laws thereof; and any person or persons offending herein, shall forfeit and pay, for every such offence, the sum of one hundred dollars, to be recovered and appropriated in manner last aforesaid.

That the Congress of the United States enacted a statute on the third day of May, in the year of our Lord 1802, entitled, An Act, &c. in the words and figures following:

An Act to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the City of Washington be constituted a body politic and corporate, by the name of a Mayor and Council of the City of Washington, and by their corporate name, may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, grant, receive, and do all other acts as natural persons, and may purchase and hold real, personal and mixed property, or dispose of the same for the benefit of the said city; and may have and use a city seal, which may be altered at pleasure. The City of Washington shall be divided into three divisions or wards, as now divided by the Levy Court for the county, for the purposes of assessment; but the number may be increased hereafter, as in the wisdom of the City Council shall seem most conducive to the general interest and convenience.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Council of the City of Washington shall consist of twelve members, residents of the city, and upwards of twenty-five years of age, to be divided into two chambers; the first chamber to consist of seven members, and the second chamber of five members; the second chamber to be chosen from the whole number of councillors, elected by their joint ballot. The City Council to be elected annually by ballot, in a general ticket, by the free white male inhabitants of full age, who have resided twelve months in the city, and paid taxes therein the year preceding the elections being held: the justices of the county of Washington, resident in the city, or any three of them, to preside as judges of election, with such associates as the council may from time to time appoint.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the first election of members of the City Council, shall be held on the first Monday in June next, and in every year afterwards, at such place in each ward as the judges of the election may prescribe.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the polls shall be kept open from eight o'clock in the morning, till seven o'clock in the evening, and no longer, for the reception of ballots. On the closing of the poll, the judges shall close and seal their ballot boxes, and meet on the day following, in the presence of the Marshal of the District, on the first election, and the council afterwards, when the seals shall be broken, and the votes counted: within three days after such election, they shall give notice to the persons having the greatest number of legal votes, that they are duly elected, and shall make their return to the Mayor of the city.

Sec. 5. And be it. further enacted, That the Mayor of the city shall be appointed annually by the President of the United States; he must be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the city prior to his appointment.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the City Council shall hold their sessions in the City Hall, or until such building is erected, in such place as the Mayor may provide for that purpose, on the second Monday in June, in each year; but the Mayor may convene them oftener, if the public good require their deliberations; three fourths of the members of each Council, may be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day: they may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties, as they may, by ordinance, provide: they shall appoint their respective Presidents, who shall preside during their sessions, and shall vote on all questions where there is an equal division: they shall settle their rules of proceedings, appoint their own officers, regulate their respective fees, and remove them at pleasure: they shall judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1702 cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 21, 1958
    ...which lead me to that conclusion. After an earlier reference to the celebrated declaration of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, concerning the usurpation of jurisdiction, he concedes that in Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U.S. 321, 70 S.Ct. 640, 94 L.Ed. 877, a......
  • People v. Markham
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1986
    ...can approach it....' " (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 442, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1611, quoting from Cohens v. Virginia (1821) 6 Wheat (19 U.S.) 264, 387, 5 L.Ed. 257.) Section 940 does not fully define the privilege against self-incrimination and should not be relied on in analyzing a q......
  • Birbeck v. Southern New England Production Credit
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 29, 1985
    ...the Constitution or a law of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either," Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 379 5 L.Ed. 257; and again, when "the title or right set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of ......
  • State v. Ouellette
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1983
    ... ... v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 132-33, 65 S.Ct. 165, 168, 89 L.Ed. 118 (1944), reh. denied, 323 U.S. 818, 65 S.Ct. 427, 89 L.Ed. 649 (1945); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399-400, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821); Satty [190 Conn. 92] v. Nashville Gas ... Page 1010 ... Co., 522 F.2d 850, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Sovereign Immunity Analysis In Subscription Credit Facilities
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 28, 2012
    ...Blackstone's Commentaries Book III, Chapter 17 (1765-1769)). 2 Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 3 See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 4 28 U.S.C. §1491. 5 See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) and Alden v. Main......
17 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264,416 (1821) ("[T]he necessity of uniformity, as well as correctness in expounding the constitution and laws of the United States, would itsel......
  • Limits on Federal Water Quality Regulation: The Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and Clean Water Act 'Navigable Waters
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • April 20, 2009
    ...that the first Congresses did not enact nationwide punishments for criminal conduct under the Commerce Clause); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 426 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.) (stating that Congress “has no general right to pun-ish murder committed within any States,” and that it is “clear . ......
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 52 No. 3, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...sovereign immunity). (30) U.S. CONST, art. VI, cl. 2. (31) McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429-31 (1819). (32) Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 411-12 (1821) ("The universally received opinion is, that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United (33) See, e.g., The Siren, ......
  • Federalism and families.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 143 No. 6, June - June - June 1995
    • June 1, 1995
    ...most nationalist decisions (and jurists) early in its history expressed loyalty to the concept of dual federalism. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 414, 6 Wheat. 120, 185 (1821) (referring to the states as "members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subo......
  • 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