United States v. Lanza, No. 39

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTAFT
Citation43 S.Ct. 141,260 U.S. 377,67 L.Ed. 314
Decision Date11 December 1922
Docket NumberNo. 39
PartiesUNITED STATES v. LANZA et al

260 U.S. 377
43 S.Ct. 141
67 L.Ed. 314
UNITED STATES

v.

LANZA et al.

No. 39.
Argued Nov. 23, 1922.
Decided Dec. 11, 1922.

Page 378

Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.

Mr. John F. Dore, of Seattle, Wash., for defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error by the United States under the Criminal Appeals Act (34 Stat. c. 2564, p. 1246 [U. S. Comp. St. § 1704]), to reverse an order of the District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissing five counts of an indictment presented against the defendants in error April 28, 1920. The first of these charged the defendants with manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the second with transporting it, the third with possessing it, and the fourth and fifth with having a still and material designed for its manufacture

Page 379

about April 12, 1920, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (chapter 85, 41 Stat. 305). The defendants filed a special plea in bar setting out that on April 16, 1920, an information was filed in the superior court of Whatcom county, Wash., charging the same defendants with manufacturing, transporting and having in possession the same liquor, and that on the same day a judgment was entered against each defendant for $250 for manufacturing, $250 for transporting, and $250 for having in possession such liquor. The information was filed under a statute of Washington in force before the going into effect of the Eighteenth Amendment and passage of the National Prohibition Act. Remington's Code, § 6262 1 et seq., as amended by Sess. Laws 1917, p. 46. The government demurred to the plea. The District Court sustained the plea and dismissed the five counts. United States v. Peterson, 268 Fed. 864. No point is made by the government in the assignments of error that counts 4 and 5, for having a still and material in possession, were not covered by the information and judgment by the state court.

The Eighteenth Amendment is as follows:

'Section, 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from, the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes, is hereby prohibited.

'Sec. 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'

The defendants insist that two punishments for the same act, one under the National Prohibition Act and the other under a state law, constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment; and in support of this position it is argued that both laws derive their force from the same

Page 380

authority—the second section of the amendment—and therefore that in principle it is as if both punishments were in prosecutions by the United Stats in its courts.

Consideration of this argument requires an analysis of the reason and purpose of the second section of the amendment. We dealt with both sections in the National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 588, 64 L. Ed. 946. The conclusions of the court, relevant here, are Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9.

'6. The first section of the amendment, the one embodying the prohibition, is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every legislative act whether by Congress, by a state Legislature, or by a territorial assembly—which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits.

'7. The second section of the amendment, the one declaring 'the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,' does not enable Congress or the several states to defeat or to thwart the prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means.

'8. The words 'concurrent power' in that section do not mean joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to be effective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the several states or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to enforce is divided between Congress and the several states along the lines which separae or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from intrastate affairs.

'9. The power confided to Congress by that section, while not exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as well as importation, exportation and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several states or any of them.'

Page 381

The amendment was adopted for the purpose of establishing prohibition as a national policy reaching every part of the United States and affecting transactions which are essentially local or intrastate, as well as those pertaining to interstate or foreign commerce. The second section means that power to take legislative measures to make the policy effective shall exist in Congress in respect of the territorial limits of the United States and at the same time the like power of the several states within their territorial limits shall not cease to exist. Each state, as also Congress, may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
492 practice notes
  • Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2019
    ...last of those antebellum cases, in a decision upholding a federal prosecution that followed one by a State. See United States v. Lanza , 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922) ("[A]n act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the pe......
  • U.S. v. Jackson, No. 01-9
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 18, 2003
    ...does not construe the Double Jeopardy Clause to bar successive prosecutions by State and federal sovereigns. See United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 384, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922) (holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar federal prosecution following conviction in Stat......
  • People v. Halim, B271770
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 2017
    ...(2016) 579 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1867, 195 L.Ed.2d 179.) The Supreme Court promulgated the doctrine in United States v. Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314, which held that a prior state conviction, followed by a federal indictment for the same acts, did not viol......
  • State v. Moeller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 1979
    ...governments "(derive) power from different sources," each from the organic law that established it. United States [178 Conn. 72] v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). Each has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
492 cases
  • Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2019
    ...last of those antebellum cases, in a decision upholding a federal prosecution that followed one by a State. See United States v. Lanza , 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922) ("[A]n act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the pe......
  • U.S. v. Jackson, No. 01-9
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 18, 2003
    ...does not construe the Double Jeopardy Clause to bar successive prosecutions by State and federal sovereigns. See United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 384, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922) (holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar federal prosecution following conviction in Stat......
  • People v. Halim, B271770
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 2017
    ...(2016) 579 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1867, 195 L.Ed.2d 179.) The Supreme Court promulgated the doctrine in United States v. Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314, which held that a prior state conviction, followed by a federal indictment for the same acts, did not viol......
  • State v. Moeller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 1979
    ...governments "(derive) power from different sources," each from the organic law that established it. United States [178 Conn. 72] v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). Each has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Criminal Justice
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 275-1, May 1951
    • May 1, 1951
    ...280 (Jackson, J., 1950). Cf. United States, 155 U. S. 271 (1894); United Bridges v. United States, 184 F. (2d) 181 (9th States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377 (1922); In Bradley, 318 U. S. 50 (1943)—Stone, C.J., 15 Amendment VIII. See Louisiana ex rel. dissenting; Pinkerton v. United States, ......

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