United States v. Peterson
Decision Date | 18 October 1920 |
Docket Number | 5568,5350,5245,5570,5573. |
Citation | 268 F. 864 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. PETERSON et al., and four other cases. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Robert C. Saunders, U.S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash.
John F Dore, of Seattle, Wash., for defendants.
These cases are submitted together. The defendants in the several cases are charged with violation of the National Prohibition Act. Pleas in bar have been filed by each of the defendants in causes 5245 and 5568, setting forth conviction in the state court upon the same facts, and in causes 5573, 5570 and 5350, convictions in municipal courts upon the same facts. The sufficiency of the pleas is challenged.
The Washington Prohibition Law (Laws 1915, c. 2, p. 2) is more stringent in its provisions as to possession and use of intoxicating liquors than the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). It is sometimes called a 'bone-dry' law. To the same effect is the city ordinance. The question for decision is: What, if any relation do the state law and city ordinance bear to the national act?
The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution reads:
The Supreme Court, in Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350, 40 Sup.Ct. 486, 64 L.Ed. 946, decided June 7, 1920, said:
Section 2, article 6, Constitution, provides:
'That this Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the laws * * * made in pursuance thereof, * * * shall be the supreme law of the land.'
Section 2, art. 18, and section 2, art. 6, must have harmonious relation, since no express declaration in the amendment was made, nor are the provisions necessarily inconsistent. The national legislation, therefore, is paramount, and the state laws, when in conflict, must yield, Ballaine v. Alaska N Ry. Co., 259 F. 183, 170 C.C.A. 251, and cases cited. Much 'bewilderment' is created by 'concurrent power to enforce by proper legislation,' granted by section 2, art. 18. This is a conferred power, not upon courts of the state, giving them concurrent jurisdiction to enforce a congressional act, but primarily a power conferred upon the state Legislature, and through it upon the state courts, by such legislation as it may enact in harmony with the National Prohibition Act, to enforce article 18, and while...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Moore
...for the obstruction of the dominant purposes of the 18th amendment. (State v. Nickerson, supra; State v. District Court, supra; United States v. Peterson, supra; Commonwealth v. Vigliotti, 271 Pa. 10, 115 A. Merryweather v. State, 125 Miss. 435, 87 So. 411; Woods v. City of Seattle (D. C.),......
-
Alexander v. State
... ... irreconcilable, and the State law must give way as the United ... States law is supreme. 5 R. C. L., p. 912, § 6; 5 L. R ... A. 78. The United States courts ... 980; Feigenspan, Inc., v ... Bodine, 264 F. 186; United States v ... Peterson, 268 F. 864 ... In the ... case of State v. Green. 86 So. 919, the ... ...
-
State v. West
...466 F.2d 1155; United States v. Candelaria, D.C.Cal., 131 F.Supp. 797; United States v. Palan, Cir.Ct.N.Y., 167 F. 991; United States v. Peterson, D.C.Wash., 268 F. 864.6 McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Annot., Criminal Procedure Law, §§ 40.20, 40.30(1). The New York statute was c......
-
Cooley v. State
...v. Overby, 80 Ky. 208, 3 Ky. Law Rep. 704, 44 Am.Rep. 471; Commonwealth v. Fuller, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 313, 41 Am.Dec. 509; U.S. v. Peterson (D. C.) 268 F. 864. But on principle and authority we believe that the herein expressed is the true view of the law upon this subject. But this plea wa......