Hughes v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 5139. |
| Citation | 253 F. 543 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
B. F Pursel, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Francis M. Wilson, U.S. Atty., and William G. Lynch, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and WADE, District Judge.
Hughes complains of a conviction and sentence for violating section 2 of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 785, c. 1 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 6287h)), by the sale of morphine, heroin, and cocaine to persons not producing written orders on forms issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. He contends that the statute is unconstitutional, that the indictment charged no offense, and that the evidence at the trial was insufficient to justify his conviction.
Section 1 of the act (section 6287g) requires, among other things all dealers in and dispensers of opium and coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, to register with the collector of internal revenue and pay a tax. Section 2 prohibits, with exceptions, the sale or dispensing of the drugs, except upon the written order of the person seeking to purchase, made upon blank forms issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It also provides that to obtain the blanks the applicant must have registered and paid the tax required by section 1. Duplicate orders in each sale must be made, one to be retained by the purchaser and the other delivered to the dealer, both to be kept for a prescribed period and subject to official inspection. Section 9 (section 6287o) prescribes the penalty for violations. The effect of the provisions is to limit sales to registered dealers, save the excepted instances. One exception authorizes physicians and certain others to dispense the drugs in the course of 'professional practice only,' and the obtaining of them from a dealer upon a physician's prescription, both without the written order above referred to. The accused registered as a dealer and paid the tax, but he sold without written orders from the purchasers.
It is urged that the purpose of the statute was the suppression of the drug habit, and that it is therefore not a revenue measure, but one of police, within the exclusive province of the states. But we think it cannot be said that the provisions referred to have no real or substantial relation to the raising of revenue. If they have such relation, we have nothing to do with any other purpose of Congress. The traffic in such drugs is of a peculiar character. Considerable of it is carried on covertly by peddlers, and the small bulk of the articles facilitates clandestine distribution. The difficulties of subjecting the traffic to excise and preventing frauds on the revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratigan v. United States
...938, 81 L.Ed. ___. 1 Boyd v. U. S., 271 U.S. 104, 46 S.Ct. 442, 70 L.Ed. 857; Burnstein v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 55 F.(2d) 599; Hughes v. U. S., 253 F. 543 (C.C.A. 8); Jin Fuey Moy v. U. S., 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214; Linder v. U. S., 268 U. S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R......
-
Cain v. United States
...and quite a respectable part of bench and bar has doubted its validity. But it was held valid by this court in the case of Hughes v. United States, 253 F. 543, and by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of Webb v. United States, 249 U. S. 96, 39 S. Ct. 217, 63 L. Ed. 497, U......
-
U.S. v. Gould
...the jury that it must accept this fact as conclusive. The first aspect of this inquiry merits little discussion. In Hughes v. United States, 253 F. 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1918), cert. denied,249 U.S. 610, 39 S.Ct. 291, 63 L.Ed. 801 (1919), this court It is also urged that there was no evidence ......
-
Thompson v. United States
... ... v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 535, 541, 19 L.Ed. 482; ... In re Kollock, 165 U.S. 526, 536, 17 Sup.Ct. 444, 41 ... L.Ed. 813; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 24 ... Sup.Ct. 769, 49 L.Ed. 78, 1 Ann.Cas. 561 ... See, ... also, the opinion of this court in Hughes v. United ... States, 253 F. 543, ... C.C.A ... If ... physicians and the others mentioned in the exceptions can ... sell and dispense these narcotics, regardless of the fact ... whether it is done ... [258 F. 201] ... in good faith for the relief of a patient, then the ... ...