Effie Hoke v. United States, No. 381

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcKenna
Citation33 S.Ct. 281,57 L.Ed. 523,227 U.S. 308
Decision Date24 February 1913
Docket NumberNo. 381
PartiesEFFIE HOKE and Basile Economides, Plffs. in Err., v. UNITED STATES

227 U.S. 308
33 S.Ct. 281
57 L.Ed. 523
EFFIE HOKE and Basile Economides, Plffs. in Err.,

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 381.
Argued January 7 and 8, 1913.
Decided February 24, 1913.

[Syllabus from pages 308-310 intentionally omitted]

Page 310

Messrs. C. W. Howth, Hal W. Greer, T. H. Bowers, and Charles C. Luzenberg for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 310-313 intentionally omitted]

Page 313

Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 313-316 intentionally omitted]

Page 316

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Error to review a judgment of conviction under the act of Congress of June 25, 1910, entitled, 'An Act to

Page 317

Further Regulate Interstate and Foreign Commerce by Prohibiting the Transportation Therein for Immoral Purposes of Women and Girls, and for Other Purposes.' 36 Stat. at L. 825, chap. 395, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1343. It is commonly known as the white slave act.

The constitutionality of the act was assailed by demurrer, and as its sufficiency otherwise was not questioned, a brief summary of its allegations is all that is necessary.

The charge against Effie Hoke is that she 'did, on the 14th day of November, A. D. 1910, in the city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly persuade, induce, and entice one Annette Baden, alias Annette Hays, a woman, to go from New Orleans, a city in the state of Louisiana, to Beaumont, a city in the state of Texas, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of prostitution,' etc.

The charge against Basile Economides is that he 'did unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly aid and assist the said Effie Hoke to persuade, induce, and entice the said Annette Baden . . . to go in interstate commerce . . . for the purpose of prostitution,' with the intent and purpose that the said woman 'should engage in the practice of prostitution in the said city of Beaumont, Texas.'

The second and third counts make the same charge against the defendants as to another woman, the one named in the third count being under eighteen years.

The demurrers were overruled, and after trial the defendants were convicted and sentenced, each to two years' imprisonment on each count. 187 Fed. 992.

The indictment was drawn under §§ 2, 3, and 4 of the act, which sections are as follows:

'Sec. 2. That any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for, or in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any territory or in the District of Columbia, any woman or girl for the purpose of prosti-

Page 318

tution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice; or who shall knowingly procure or obtain, or cause to be procured or obtained, or aid or assist in procuring or obtaining, any ticket or tickets, or any form of transportation or evidence of the right thereto, to be used by any woman or girl in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any territory or the District of Columbia, in going to any place for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose on the part of such person to induce, entice, or compel her to give herself up to the practice of prostitution, or to give herself up to debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whereby any such woman or girl shall be transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any territory or the District of Columbia, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.'

The 3d section is directed against the persuasion, inducement, and enticement of any woman or girl to go from one place to another in interstate or foreign commerce, whether with or without her consent, to engage in the practices and for the purposes stated in the 1st section, and provides that anyone 'who shall thereby knowingly cause, or aid or assist in causing, such woman or girl to go or to be carried or transported as a passenger upon the line or route of any common carrier or carriers in interstate or foreign commerce, or any territory or the District of Columbia,' shall be punished as prescribed in the 1st section.

Section 4 makes criminal persuasion, inducement, and enticement of a woman or girl under the age of eight-

Page 319

een years from any state or territory or the District of Columbia to any other state or territory or the District of Columbia to engage in the immoral practices enumerated. The person guilty thereof, and who shall, in furtherance thereof, knowingly induce or cause such woman or girl to be carried or transported as a passenger in interstate commerce, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction the offender's punishment may be a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

The grounds of attack upon the constitutionality of the statute are expressed by counsel as follows:

'1. Because it is contrary to and contravenes art. 4, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which reads: 'The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.'

'2. Because it is contrary to and contravenes the following two amendments to the Constitution:

'Art. 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

'Art. 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

'3. Because that clause of the Constitution which reserves to Congress the power (art. 1, § 8, subdiv. 2) 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,' etc., is not broad enough to include the power to regulate prostitution or any other immorality of citizens of the several states as a condition precedent (or subsequent) to their right to travel interstate, or to aid or assist another to so travel.

'4. Because the right and power to regulate and control prostitution, or any other immoralities of citizens, comes within the reserved police power of the several states,

Page 320

and under the Constitution Congress cannot interfere therewith, either directly or indirectly, under the grant of power 'to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
259 practice notes
  • State v. United States Dep't of Health, Nos. 11–11021
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 12, 2011
    ...188 U.S. 321, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492 (1903); and carrying a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes,” Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320, 33 S.Ct. 281, 283, 57 L.Ed. 523 (1913). Through the Commerce Clause, Congress may prevent the interstate transportation of liquor, Unite......
  • Powell v. United States Cartridge Co Aaron v. Ford, Bacon Davis Creel v. Lone Star Defense Corporation 8212 1949, Nos. 96
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1950
    ...S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492); Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 31 S.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364; cf. Hoke v. United States, supra, (227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523, 43 L.R.A., N.S., 906, Ann.Cas.1913E, 905); stolen articles, Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345,......
  • United States v. Edwards, No. 866-Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • April 4, 1936
    ...of 1910 (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 397-404), prohibiting the transportation of women for immoral purposes, sustained in Hoke v. United States (1913) 227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 906, Ann.Cas.1913E, 905; Bennett v. United States (1913) 227 U.S. 333, 33 S.Ct. 288, 57 L.Ed. ......
  • United States v. Gerhart, Cr. A. No. 513 (Beckley)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • October 1, 1967
    ...which it deems inimical to the general welfare. Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492 (1903); Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523 (1913). The application of this long understood principle by Turf Center and Zizzo to Section 1952 is unquestion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
254 cases
  • State v. United States Dep't of Health, Nos. 11–11021
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 12, 2011
    ...188 U.S. 321, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492 (1903); and carrying a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes,” Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320, 33 S.Ct. 281, 283, 57 L.Ed. 523 (1913). Through the Commerce Clause, Congress may prevent the interstate transportation of liquor, Unite......
  • Powell v. United States Cartridge Co Aaron v. Ford, Bacon Davis Creel v. Lone Star Defense Corporation 8212 1949, Nos. 96
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1950
    ...S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492); Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 31 S.Ct. 364, 55 L.Ed. 364; cf. Hoke v. United States, supra, (227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523, 43 L.R.A., N.S., 906, Ann.Cas.1913E, 905); stolen articles, Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345,......
  • United States v. Edwards, No. 866-Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • April 4, 1936
    ...of 1910 (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 397-404), prohibiting the transportation of women for immoral purposes, sustained in Hoke v. United States (1913) 227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 906, Ann.Cas.1913E, 905; Bennett v. United States (1913) 227 U.S. 333, 33 S.Ct. 288, 57 L.Ed. ......
  • United States v. Gerhart, Cr. A. No. 513 (Beckley)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • October 1, 1967
    ...which it deems inimical to the general welfare. Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492 (1903); Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 33 S.Ct. 281, 57 L.Ed. 523 (1913). The application of this long understood principle by Turf Center and Zizzo to Section 1952 is unquestion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...omitted). (583.) See, e.g., Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 268 (1973). (584.) See, e.g., Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 323 (1913)(sustaining a prohibition on crossing state lines with a woman for the purpose of (585.) See, e.g., Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212......
  • Regulating Greenhouse Gases at the State Level: California's Self-Inflicted Burden
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-9, September 2009
    • September 1, 2009
    ...114 U.S. 196, 203 (1885); Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218-19 (1894); Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320 (1913); United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423 (1919). 79. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 904 (1986). here is a......
  • Preface
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 574-1, March 2001
    • March 1, 2001
    ...v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). 17. Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903).18. Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913).19. Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45 (1911).20. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).21. 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 22......
  • Dead or Alive? The Federalism Revolution and Its Meaning for Public Administration
    • United States
    • Public Administration Review Nbr. 69-5, September 2009
    • September 1, 2009
    ...Congress’s commerce power to production, manufacturing, or mining ( omas and Tatelman 2005, 6). See, respectively, Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913); United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 12 (1895); and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 304 (1936).3. For example, t......
  • 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