Ex parte Ramsey

• Decision Date: 17 July 1920
• Docket Number: 1094,1096.
• Citation: 265 F. 950
• Parties: Ex parte RAMSEY et al. Ex parte STEWART et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

265 F. 950

Ex parte RAMSEY et al. Ex parte STEWART et al.

Nos. 1094, 1096.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

July 17, 1920

Julian Hartridge, of Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioners Ramsey and others.

William A. Hallowes, Jr., and Miles W. Lewis, both of Jacksonville Fla., for petitioners Stewart and others.

Herbert S. Phillips, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Tampa, Fla.

CALL District Judge.

In the first of the above two cases the petition for the writ of habeas corpus alleges that each of the three petitioners was convicted in the criminal court of record for Duval county Fla., on two informations, charging that on July 2, 1920 they had in their possession, in Duval county, 1,000 quarts of liquor, and sentenced on such convictions to serve terms of six months in the county chain gang on each offense charged in such informations.

In the second the four petitioners allege that they are being held in jail by the sheriff of Duval county, awaiting trial in the criminal court of record for Duval county, upon information charging that they had in their possession on July 7, 1920 in Duval county, 1,500 quarts of intoxicating liquor. The petitioners in each of the cases seek to be discharged from custody on the ground that the state law under which the prosecutions are had is in violation of the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305), and therefore void.

In the first cases it is contended, also, that at the time the state authorities took the petitioners in custody they were then in the custody of a revenue agent of the United States government, under a charge of violating the Volstead Act. No question is made but that under this ground the petitioners must be discharged from the custody of the county officers. This leaves the question common to all the petitioners to be disposed of.

Naturally the first question is as to the jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the cause of detention. This question must be answered in the affirmative upon authority of many adjudicated cases. The Eighteenth Amendment went into effect in January, 1920. After the proclamation of the ratification of the amendment, the Congress passed, over the President's veto, the act for the enforcement of the prohibition declared in the amendment; the House on the 27th and the Senate on the 28th of October, 1919.

The Legislature of the state of Florida, in 1917, proposed an amendment to the state Constitution forbidding the manufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors, which amendment was adopted at the general election in 1918. The Governor called a special session of the Legislature, elected at such election, which body passed chapter 7736, Laws of Florida, designed to enforce such amendment just adopted. This act was approved December 7, 1918, and went into effect January 1, 1919. The information in these cases charged a violation of section 3 of the act forbidding possession of intoxicating liquors by any person, except as provided in the act. The act, in a subsequent section, provided that persons might possess 4 quarts of distilled and 20 quarts of malt liquor in his bona fide residence for his personal and family use.

On June 7, 1920, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in the seven cases pending before it, in which the construction of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act was involved. The court in its ninth conclusion say:

'The power confided to Congress by that section (section 2 of the amendment), while not exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions, as well as importation, exportation, and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several states or any of them.'

In considering the effect of the Eighteenth Amendment, the Volstead Act, and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on existing state legislation, it must be borne in mind that two of the seven cases were original actions brought by two states whose Legislatures had passed acts increasing the alcoholic strength of beverages over that given in the Volstead Act, and these suits were dismissed. The reason for such action, other than those expressed in the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice, is not given. The Chief Justice filed his concurring opinion, and, discussing the contentions of counsel before the court, says:

'It is said, conceding that the concurrent power given to Congress and to the states does not as a prerequisite exact the concurrent action of both, it nevertheless contemplates the possibility of action by Congress and by the states, and makes each action effective; but as under the Constitution the authority of Congress in enforcing the Constitution is paramount, when state legislation and congressional action conflict the state legislation yields to the action of Congress as controlling. But as the power of both Congress and the states in this instance is given by the Constitution in one and the same provision, I again find myself unable to accept the view urged, because it ostensibly accepts the constitutional mandate as to the concurrence of the two powers and proceeds

...