Corneli v. Moore Ghio v. Same Bryan v. Miles Eastes v. Crutchley 548

• Decision Date: 30 January 1922
• Docket Number: Nos. 174,175,428,s. 174
• Citation: 42 S.Ct. 176,257 U.S. 491,66 L.Ed. 332
• Parties: CORNELI v. MOORE, Collector of Internal Revenue. GHIO v. SAME. BRYAN v. MILES, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. EASTES v. CRUTCHLEY, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. , and 548
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

257 U.S. 491

42 S.Ct. 176

66 L.Ed. 332

CORNELI

v MOORE, Collector of Internal Revenue.

GHIO

v. SAME.

BRYAN

v. MILES, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.

EASTES

v. CRUTCHLEY, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.

Nos. 174, 175, 428, and 548.

Argued Dec. 15, 1921,

Decided Jan. 30, 1922.

Suits by Charles Corneli against George H. Moore, Collector of Internal Revenue, by George J. Ghio against George H. Moore, Collector of Internal Revenue, by William H. Bryan against Joshua W. Miles, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Maryland, and another, and by Walter A. Eastes against George F. Crutchley, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Sixth District of Missouri, and others. From a decree in each case dismissing the bill, each plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Messrs. Elliott W. Major and Glendy B. Arnold, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants Corneli, Ghio, and Eastes.

Mr. Julian S. Jones, of Baltimore, Md., for appellant Bryan.

Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from page 492 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases, though having different parties and coming from different courts, are dependent upon the same considerations. They differ in some details but they all involve the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and its assistant legislation, the National Prohibition Act.

The amendment after its ratification prohibited for beverage purposes, among other things, the transportation of intoxicating liquor within the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And Congress and the states were given concurrent power to enforce the prohibition by appropriate legislation.

Congress in pursuance of that power passed the National Prohibition (Volstead) Act. 41 Stat. 305. Are the cases at bar within the mandate and the prohibition, are the special questions involved in them?

First as to the cases as displayed in the bills—there are some differences in their averments but their essential allegations identifying them in principle are as follows: The appellees were, respectively, collectors of internal revenue for the First internal revenue district of the state of Missouri, the district of Maryland, and the Sixth internal revenue district of the state of Missouri. It was the duty of each to collect and receive taxes on distilled spirits in government bonded warehouses, and, upon payment of the taxes, to issue revenue stamps showing the payment of the taxes. As such officers they had, respectively, the custody and control of the spirits, and the right of ingress to and egress from the warehouses.

Each appellant became the purchaser of a barrel of whisky in one of the warehouses (it is designated) which was identified and which he was desirous of removing to his dwelling for use and disposition of the spirits according to law. The appellees refused to release or deliver the spirits, or to accept the payment of the taxes thereon which appellants either tendered or, on account of opposing declarations of appellees, omitted to tender.

The refusal of appellees to release the spirits is asserted to be wrongful and illegal and a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that it deprives appellants of their property without due process of law and takes it for public use without just compensation.

The prayers of the bills were in effect (we disregard particulars) to require appellees to do what was necessary to release the spirits from the warehouses and to enable them to be transported to the respective dwellings of appellants.

The bills were dismissed upon motions of appellees.

Against the rulings upon the motions, and against the decrees dismissing the bills, appellants adduce certain provisions of the National Prohibition Act and cite Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 254 U. S. 88, 41 Sup. Ct. 31, 65 L. Ed. 151, 10 A. L. R. 1548.

So much of the cited portions as is relevant we insert in the margin. We may observe, however, that while their provisions extend to the manufacture, sale and other disposition of intoxicating beverages, as well as to their transportation, we only insert the provisions concerning the latter¹.

Before considering the provisions here specially involved, we may say that the act has been sustained, and it has been decreed that the power of Congress can be asserted against the disposal for beverage purposes, of all liquor manufactured before the amendment became effective, as it can be asserted against subsequent manufacture for those purposes. Either case is within the constitutional mandate and prohibition.

A consideration of the act becomes necessary. Section 3 is comprehensive in its prohibition, and it takes pains to provide that it shall have such liberality of construction as to achieve its declared purpose.

It is, however, contended that there is modification of this apparent universality of prohibition, and that, by a permission of traffic in warehouse receipts, liquor in storage in bonded warehouses is not subject to the ban of the section.

Regarding the words of section 3 in connection with some of the provisions of sections 25 and 33, they give some plausibility to the contention and some puzzle to construction, but we are repelled nevertheless from those of appellants. To accept them would defeat the purpose of the act and its achievement of the mandate of the Constitution. That mandate is, as will be seen by reference to section 1 of the amendment, 'that the transportation of intoxicating liquor within * * * the United States * * * for beverage purposes' shall be prohibited. And, as we have said, the act declares (sec. 3) that all of its provisions shall be liberally construed 'to the end,' to quote its words, 'that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented.' The method of appellants, we think, tended to the opposite effect tended to the use of liquor as beverage, not its prevention.

We are unable to see in section 33 which takes illegality from the 'liquors in one's private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only' and the rights that may attach to liquors in such situation an intention to extend such rights to liquors not so situated or, to put it more pointedly, an intention to make all bonded warehouses of the country outbuildings of its dwellings.

There is nothing favorable to appellants' contention in section 37². It permits transportation to bonded warehouses but not from them as inferred by appellants. Transtion from them is confined to transportation to a wholesale druggist for sale to him for purposes not prohibited. A permit is necessary even for this.

In connection with section 37, section 6, title III of the act is pertinent. It permits distilled spirits produced and fit for beverage purposes remaining in bonded warehouses to be withdrawn for denaturing 'or for deposit in a bonded warehouse established by the act.'

Counsel urge Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., supra, against this conclusion, and as sustaining their contention. In that case, by motion to dismiss, it was admitted that Street was the lessee of a room in the Deposit Company's Warehouse, in which he had stored liquors, acquired prior to the effective date of the National Prohibition Act, which liquors were 'in his exclusive possession and control and are intended and will be used only for personal consumption by himself and the members of his family or his bona fide guests.' The storage room was obviously the use of a convenience very commonly employed and contributory to his dwelling, and therefore, for the reasons stated in that opinion, it was concluded that the National Prohibition Act did not render unlawful the storage of liquors there involved or their transportation, under proper permit, to the dwelling of the owner for lawful uses. And this difference in the facts in the case from those in the cases at bar removes it as a precedent. There is no analogy in Street's relation to the room in the Deposit Company's warehouse and appellants' relation to bonded warehouses. They had neither control, access to or possession of the spirits they purchased. Mere ownership was not the equivalent. Under section 33 there must be ownership, and possession in one's private dwelling, and that character cannot be assigned to the bonded warehouses of the government.

Comment on other provisions of the act we do not think is necessary. A reference to them demonstrates that they have no militating force against our conclusion.

But appellants contend the effect we assign to the act is to assign to it the effect of depriving them of their property without due process of law or taking it for public purposes without just compensation. To understand the conditions of the contention, a distinction in the cases...