Linder v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 183,183 |
| Citation | 39 A. L. R. 229,69 L.Ed. 819,45 S.Ct. 446,268 U.S. 5 |
| Parties | LINDER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George Turner, of Spokane, Wash., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 6-8 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General, Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., Assistant Attorney General Donovan, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
The court below affirmed the conviction of petitioner by the District Court, Eastern District of Washington, under the following count of an indictment returned therein June 26, 1922. As to all other counts the jury found him not guilty.
Count II. And the grand jurors aforesaid upon their oaths do further present: That Charles O. Linder, whose other or true name is to the grand jurors unknown, hereinafter in this indictment called the defendant, late of the County of Spokane, state of Washington, heretofore, to wit, on or about the 1st day of April, 1922, at Spokane, in the Northern division of the Eastern district of Washington, and within the jurisdiction of this court, did then and there violate the Act of December 17, 1914, entitled 'An act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes,' as amended February 24, 1919, in that he did then and there knowingly, willfully and unlawfully sell, barter and give to Ida Casey a compound, manufacture, and derivative of opium, to wit, one (1) tablet of morphine and a compound, manufacture, and derivative of coca leaves, to wit, three (3) tablets of cocaine, not in pursuance of any written order of Ida Casey on a form issued for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States; that the defendant was a duly licensed physician and registered under the act; that Ida Casey was a person addicted to the habitual use of morphine and cocaine and known by the defendant to be so addicted; that Ida Casey did not require the administration of either morphine or cocaine by reason of any disease other than such addiction; that the defendant did not dispense any of the drugs for the purpose of treating any disease or condition other than such addiction; that none of the drugs so dispensed by the defendant was administered to or intended by the defendant to be administered to Ida Casey by the defendant or any nurse, or person acting under the direction of the defendant, nor were any of the drugs consumed or intended to be consumed by Ida Casey in the presence of the defendant, but that all of the drugs were put in the possession or control of Ida Casey with the intention on the part of the defendant that Ida Casey would use the same by self-administration in divided doses over a period of time, the amount of each of said drugs dispensed being more than sufficient or necessary to satisfy the cravings of Ida Casey therefor if consumed by her all at one time; that Ida Casey was not in any way restrained or prevented from disposing of the drugs in any manner she saw fit and that the drugs so dispensed by the defendant were in the form in which said drugs are usually consumed by persons addicted to the habitual use thereof to satisfy their craving therefor and were adapted for consumption—contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the United States.
The Harrison Narcotic Law, approved December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 785, c. 1 [Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q])—12 sections—is entitled:
'An act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes.'
Section 1 provides:
'That on and after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, every person [with exceptions not here important] who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, sells, distributes, or gives away opium or coca leaves or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, or preparation thereof, shall register with the collector of internal revenue,' and shall pay a special annual tax of $1.
Also:
Sec. 2 provides:
'(a) To the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this act in the course of his professional practice only: Provided, that such physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon shall keep a record of all such drugs dispensed or distributed, showing the amount dispensed or distributed, the date, and the name and address of the patient to whom such drugs are dispensed or distributed, except such as may be dispensed or distributed to a patient upon whom such physician, dentist or veterinary surgeon shall personally attend; and such record shall be kept for a period of two years from the date of dispensing or distributing such drugs, subject to inspection, as provided in this act.
'(b) * * *
'(c) * * *
'(d) * * *
* * *'- Section 8:
'That it shall be unlawful for any person not registered under the provisions of this act, and who has not paid the special tax provided for by this act, to have in his possession or under his control any of the aforesaid drugs; and such possession or control shall be presumptive evidence of a violation of this section, and also of a violation of the provisions of section one of this act: Provided, that this section shall not apply to any employee of a registered person, or to a nurse under the supervision of a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this act, having such possession or control by virtue of his employment or occupation and not on his own account; or to the possession of any of the aforesaid drugs which has or have been prescribed in good faith by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this act; or to any United States, state, county, municipal, District, territorial, or insular officer or official who has possession of any said drugs, by reason of his official duties, or to a warehouseman holding possession for a person registered and who has paid the taxes under this act; or to common carriers engaged in transporting such drugs: Provided further, that it shall not be necessary to negative any of the aforesaid exemptions in any complaint, information, indictment, or other writ or proceeding laid or brought under this act; and the burden of proof of any such exemption shall be upon the defendant.'
'That any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this act shall, on conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.'
Section 1 was amended by the Act of February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1130 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6287g). This increased the special annual tax to $24 on importers, manufacturers, producers and compounders, $12 on wholesale dealers, $6 on retail dealers, and $3 on 'physicians, dentists, veterinary surgeons, and other practitioners lawfully entitled to distribute, dispense, give away, or administer any of the aforesaid drugs to patients upon whom they in the course of their professional practice are in attendance.' It also added a provision requiring that stamps—one cent for each ounce—should be affixed to every package of opium, coca leaves, any compound, salt, derivative or preparation thereof, produced in or imported into the United States and sold or removed for consumption or sale, and then the following paragraph:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, sell, dispense, or distribute any of the aforesaid drugs except in the original stamped package or from the original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps from any of the aforesaid drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found; and the possession of any original stamped package containing any of the aforesaid drugs by any person who has not registered and paid special taxes as required by this section shall be prima facie evidence of liability to such special tax: Provided, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cloverleaf Butter Co v. Patterson
...from statutory provisions reasonably adapted to the constitutional objects of the legislation. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 17, 45 S.Ct. 446, 448, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229. But here the respondent's contention is inapplicable because the regulatory provisions in controversy are a......
-
United States v. Five Gambling Devices, Labeled In Part Mills and Bearing Serial Nos 593 8212 221, Etc United States v. Denmark United States v. Braun
...Wickard v. Filburn, supra, 317 U.S. at page 124, 63 S.Ct. at page 88. (Emphasis supplied.) 7. Compare Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5, 17 45 S.Ct. 446, 449, 69 L.Ed. 819. 8. Compare Oklahoma Press Publishing Co., v. Walling, 1946, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614, holding ......
-
United State v. Kahriger
...394, 402, 36 S.Ct. 658, 659, 60 L.Ed. 1061; United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493; Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819; Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600. 8 Cf. State of New York v. United States, 326 U.S......
-
Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath
...863—864, 80 L.Ed. 1160; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 68—78, 56 S.Ct. 312, 320—325, 80 L.Ed. 477; Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 17, 45 S.Ct. 446, 448, 69 L.Ed. 819; M'Culloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 423, 4 L.Ed. 579. 14. Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro......
-
SCOTUS unanimously rejects federal convictions for opioid docs in <em>Ruan</em>, with majority stressing <em>mens rea</em> requirement
...acts “in the course of his professional practice” when the physician writes prescriptions “in good faith.” Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 17–18 (1925). I would hold that this rule applies under the CSA and would therefore vacate the judgments below and remand for further proceedings. ...
-
Constitutional Challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
...involved ( subject to the paramount authority of Congress if it decides to assume control ), is beyond question.” (emphasis added)). 24. 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925). 25. See, e.g. , Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 284–93 (1981) (upholding the constitutionality of th......
-
Inconvenient Federalism: The Pandemic, Abortion Rights, and the Commerce Clause
.... . . [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”). 55. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 22 (1925). 56. See Women’s Health Protection Act §§ 2(a)(5)(A), 2(b)(3). The act also identifies Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and......
-
The Choice Between Persuading and Coercing Americans to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19
...historically, a matter of local concern.”). 49. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24–25 (1905). 50. See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925) (“Direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.”). Pharmaceutical companies are ......
-
The optimal scope of FDA regulation of genetic tests: meeting challenges and keeping promises.
...has long embraced the proposition that it is not empowered to regulate 'the practice of medicine.'"). (92.) See Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."); see also Huang, supr......