United States v. Jin Fuey Moy

Decision Date05 June 1916
Docket NumberNo. 525,525
Citation241 U.S. 394,60 L.Ed. 1061,36 S.Ct. 658
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. JIN FUEY MOY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Wallace and Mr. W. C. Herron for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 395-396 intentionally omitted] Messrs. H. Ralph Burton, Levi Cooke, George X. McLanahan, and William Strite McDowell for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 397-399 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an indictment under § 8 of the act of December 17, 1914, chap. 1, 38 Stat. at L. 785, 789. It was quashed by the district court on the ground that the statute did not apply to the case. 225 Fed. 1003. The indictment charges a conspiracy with Willie Martin to have in Martin's possession opium and salts thereof, to wit, one dram of morphine sulphate. It alleges that Martin was not registered with the collector of internal revenue of the district, and had not paid the special tax required; that the defendant, for the purpose of executing the conspiracy, issued to Martin a written prescription for the morphine sulphate, and that he did not issue it in good faith, but knew that the drug was not given for medicinal purposes, but for the purpose of supplying one addicted to the use of opium. The question is whether the possession conspired for is within the prohibitions of the act.

The act 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.' By § 1 the persons mentioned in the title are required to register, and to pay a special tax at the rate of $1 per annum, with certain exceptions, and it is made unlawful for the persons required to register to produce, etc., the drugs without having registered and paid the special tax. All provisions of law relating to special taxes are extended to this tax. By § 2 it is declared unlawful for any person to sell or give away the drugs mentioned without a written order, provided for, excepting deliveries by physicians, etc., or on their order, and certain other cases. Then, after provision for returns, it is made unlawful by § 4 for any person who shall not have registered and paid the special tax to send, carry, or deliver the drugs in such commerce as Congress controls, again with exceptions. By § 6 preparations containing certain small proportions of the drugs are excluded from the operation of the act, under conditions. By § 7 internal revenue tax laws are made applicable, and then comes § 8, under which the indictment is framed.

By § 8 it is declared unlawful for 'any person' who is not registered and has not paid the special tax to have in his possession or control any of the said drugs, and 'such possession or control' is made presumptive evidence of a violation of this section and of § 1. There is a proviso that the section shall not apply to any employee of a registered person and certain others, with qualifications, or to the possession of any of the drugs which have been prescribed in good faith by a physician registered under the act, and to the possession of some others. And finally it is provided that the exemptions need not be negatived in any indictment, etc., and that the burden of proving them shall be upon the defendant. The district judge considered that the act was a revenue act, and that the general words, 'any person,' must be confined to the class of persons with whom the act previously had been purporting to deal. The government, on the other hand, contends that this act was passed with two others in order to carry out the international opium convention (38 Stat. at L. 1929); that Congress gave it the appearance of a taxing measure in order to give it a coating of constitutionality, but that it really was a police measure that strained all the powers of the legislature,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
317 cases
  • U.S. v. Edelin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 9, 2001
    ... 134 F.Supp.2d 59 ... UNITED STATES of America, ... Tommy EDELIN, Defendant ... No. CRIM 98-264 RCL ... United States ... Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061 (1916) (citing United States ex rel. Attorney ... ...
  • Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • December 28, 2017
    ... ... Civil Action No. 3:15cv452 United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. Signed December 28, 2017 286 F.Supp.3d 753 ... United States v. Jin Fuey Moy , 241 U.S. 394, 401, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061 (1916) ("A statute must be construed, if ... ...
  • Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Committee in Dept. of Community Affairs
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1973
    ... ... Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 355 Mass. 94, 99, 243 N.E.2d 157), that portion of § 21 which states that the 'board of appeals ... shall have the same power to issue permits or approvals as any ... violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of art. [363 Mass. 364] 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. See Conally v ... 366, 408, 53 L.Ed. 836, 29 Sup.Ct.Rep. 527.' United States, v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401, 36 S.Ct. 658, 659, 60 L.Ed. 1061 cited in Worcester County Natl. Bank v ... ...
  • In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, in Re
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1920
    ... ... engaged in foreign commerce between ports of the United ... States and the kingdom of Italy at all times in question in ... this suit) directed one of ... Jarman, 187 U.S. 197, 23 S.Ct. 108, 47 L.Ed. 139; 6 R ... C. L. 78; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S ... 394, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; ... Attorney General ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • DEAL, NO DEAL: BOSTOCK, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, AND THE FATE OF RELIGIOUS HIRING RIGHTS AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 19, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...at 1753. (61.) Id. at 1754. (68.) Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 237-38 (1998) (quoting United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916)); see also Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 857 (2000) ("[T]he guiding principle [is] that 'where a statute is susceptible ......
  • In Memoriam: Ralph Seeley
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 22-04, June 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...of [the Harrison Act] and its arbitrary stamp of felony and infamy upon so many petty violations of laws of the United States."). 186. 241 U.S. 394, 399 187. Id. at 401. 188. MUSTO, supra note 167, at 132. 189. Id. at 133. 190. Id. 191. Luna, supra note 158, at 509. 192. Id. 193. 249 U.S. 8......
  • True Threats v. Pure Speech: the Intersection of Public Safety and the First Amendment
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Criminal Law Journal (CLA) No. 16-2, December 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...8 U.S.C. § 1326, was a penalty provision and did not define a separate crime).100. Id. at 237-38 (quoting United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401 (1916)) (citing United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909)).101. Amaendarez-Torres, 523 U......
  • Rust v. Sullivan: Redirecting the Katzenbach v. Morgan Power
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 16-02, December 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...would contract. 98. See supra notes 75-76 and accompanying text. 99. Rust, 111 S. Ct. at 1767-71. 100. 213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909). 101. 241 U.S. 394, 401 102. Rust, 111 S. Ct. at 1771 (quoting Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. at 401) (using Delaware and Hudson Co., 213 U.S. at 408, for support) (emphas......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT