Granville Rippey v. State of Texas
| Decision Date | 21 March 1904 |
| Docket Number | No. 273,273 |
| Citation | 24 S.Ct. 516,48 L.Ed. 767,193 U.S. 504 |
| Parties | GRANVILLE RIPPEY, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF TEXAS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. George Clark, D. C. Bollinger, Francis M. Etheridge, and Rhodes S. Baker for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-507 intentionally omitted] Messrs.C. K. Bell and T. S. Reese for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to vote of his precinct prohibiting such sale. This vote was in pursuance of a statute which the plaintiff in error alleges to be contrary to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The question was raised at the outset by a motion to quash, which was overruled, subject to exception; the exception was overruled on appeal, and the case was brought here by writ of error.
The Constitution of Texas, art. 16, § 20, required the legislature to enact a law by which the majority of qualified voters of any county, justice's precinct, town, or city, from time to time might determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited. The legislature thereupon enacted what now are articles 3384-3399 of the Revised Statutes, and articles 402-407 of the Penal Code. These all are assailed, but the particular object of attack is art. 3395.
Article 3395 is as follows:
Art. 3395. [3238] The failure to carry prohibition in a county shall not prevent an election for the same being immediately thereafter held in a justice's precinct or subdivision of such county as designated by the commissioners' court, or of any town or city in such county; nor shall the failure to carry prohibition in a town or city prevent an election from being immediately thereafter held for the entire justice's precinct or county in which said town or city is situated; nor shall the holding of an election in a justice's precinct in any way prevent the holding of an election immediately thereafter for the entire county in which the justice's precinct is situated; but when prohibition has been carried at an election ordered for the entire county, no election on the question of prohibition shall be thereafter ordered in any justice's precinct, town, or city of said county until after prohibition has been defeated at a subsequent election for the same purpose, ordered and held for the entire county, in accordance with the provisions of this title; nor in any case where prohibition has carried in any justice's precinct shall an election on the question of prohibition be ordered thereafter in any town or city of such precinct until after prohibition has been defeated at a subsequent election, ordered and held for such entire precinct.
It will be seen that this section discriminates in favor of those who vote for prohibition; and the argument is that since the legislature was not authorized to pass a prohibitory law (Dawson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board
...Nothing in the cases cited by defendants suggests that it can. Indeed, in upholding local option liquor laws in Rippey v. State of Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 24 S.Ct. 516, 48 L.Ed. 767, and Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062, the Court specifically rests its decision not......
-
Konigsberg v. State Bar of California
...a State—and the judgment of the Supreme Court of California expresses 'the power of the state as a whole,' Rippey v. State of Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 509, 24 S.Ct. 516, 517, 48 L.Ed. 767; Skiriotes v. State of Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 79, 61 S.Ct. 924, 930, 85 L.Ed. 1193—has violated the Constitu......
-
Bridges v. State
...expressed in its constitution, we are in fact passing judgment on 'the power of the state as a whole.' Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 509, 24 S.Ct. 516, 517, 48 L.Ed. 767; Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 79, 61 S.Ct. 924, 930, 85 L.Ed. 1193; United Gas Co. v. Texas, 303 U.S. 123, 142, 58......
-
Griffin v. Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County
...U.S. 545, 74 S.Ct. 280, 98 L.Ed. 281; Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445, 24 S. Ct. 703, 48 L.Ed. 1062; Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 24 S.Ct. 516, 48 L.Ed. 767; Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Board of Improvement, 274 U.S. 387, 47 S.Ct. 595, 71 L.Ed. 26 See also Almond v. Gil......