State v. Mamlock

• Decision Date: 03 June 1910
• Parties: STATE v. MAMLOCK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

109 P. 47

58 Wash. 631

STATE v. MAMLOCK.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; C. M Easterday, Judge.

J. B Mamlock was charged with selling intoxicating liquors to an Indian, and, from an order dismissing the information, the State appeals. Reversed.

J. L McMurray and A. B. Bell, for the State.

John Leo, for respondent.

RUDKIN C.J.

An information was filed in the court below, charging the defendant Mamlock with the crime of selling intoxicating liquor to an Indian, in violation of section 6288, Rem. &amp Bal. Code. A demurrer to the information was sustained, and from an order of dismissal the state has prosecuted this appeal. In support of the demurrer in the court below, and in support of the judgment here, the respondent contends that the legislative act under which the information was filed violates the fourteenth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in so far as it prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians who are citizens of the United States, and section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, conferring authority on the general government to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, in so far as it prohibits sales to Indians, who are wards of the United States, under charge of an Indian agent or superintendent. The validity of state laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to certain classes of persons who are peculiarly liable to be injured morally or physically by their use, such as minors, persons already intoxicated, habitual drunkards, idiots, and insane persons, has so often been affirmed by the courts that the question is no longer an open one. Black on Intoxicating Liquors, § 42; 23 Cyc. 163. That the American Indian falls within the classes thus defined, whether he be a citizen of the United States or otherwise, is equally well settled. Black on Intoxicating Liquors, § 427; Territory v. Coleman, 1 Or. 191, 75 Am. Dec. 554; Territory v. Guyott, 9 Mont. 46, 22 P. 134; State v. Wise, 70 Minn. 99, 72 N.W. 843; People v. Bray, 105 Cal. 344, 38 P. 731, 27 L. R. A. 158; People v. Gebhard, 151 Mich. 192, 115 N.W. 54; Tate v. State, 58 Neb. 296, 78 N.W. 494. As said by the Superme Court of Minnesota in State v. Wise, supra: 'The statute is a police regulation. It was enacted in view of the well-known social condition, habits, and tendencies of Indians as a race. While there are doubtless notable individual exceptions to the rule, yet it is a well-known fact that Indians as a race are not as highly civilized as the whites; that they are less subject to moral restraint, more liable to acquire an inordinate appetite for intoxicating liquors, and also more liable to be dangerous to themselves and others when intoxicated. In view of these considerations, it was thought wise to protect persons of that race as well as the community at large by prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to them altogether. We are therefore of opinion that the statute applies to and includes all Indians as a race, without reference to their political status. Thus construed, the statue is a valid exercise of the police power of the state. It is neither arbitrary class legislation, nor does it abridge the priviletes or immunities of citizens of the United States, or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law, within the meaning of the 14th amendment of the federal Constitution. The difference in conditions between Indians as a race and the white race constituted a sufficient basis for classification.'

Similar language was used by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Bray, supra. The conclusion that the regulation in...