United States v. United States Express Co.
Decision Date | 13 July 1910 |
Citation | 180 F. 1006 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. FRIEDMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Youmans & Youmans, for complainants.
C. E. & H. P. Warner, for defendant.
ROGERS District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The first question which this demurrer raises is whether the tenth section of the act of March 2, 1889, supra, authorizes this proceeding. That depends upon the further question as to whether the petition brings the case stated within the purview of the provisions of the interstate commerce law. In the third section of an act to regulate commerce, approved February 4, 1887 (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 380 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155)), it is provided;
A critical examination of that section makes it clear that it is unlawful for any common carrier 'to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to * * * any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any * * * particular description of traffic to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever. ' The allegations of the complaint make it clear that the case made is completely covered by that statute; provided intoxicating liquor is an article of commerce and is not prohibited by law from being introduced into that part of the state of Oklahoma known as the Indian Territory. Whether intoxicating liquor is prohibited by law from being introduced into said territory depends upon the question as to whether or not the act of January 30, 1897 (Act Jan. 30, 1897, c. 109, 29 Stat. 506) is still in force as to that territory.
The purpose of this legislation is obvious. Speaking historically the status of the Indian and that of the Indian Territory were in a transition state. Congress was preparing the Indians for individual allotment, for American citizenship and statehood, and at the same time was endeavoring to guard the Indian from the evil consequences of intoxicating liquor and the sinister designs of unscrupulous people who might take advantage of their weakness for strong drink and despoil them of their properties. While this statute was in force, the act of Congress enabling Oklahoma to become a state was approved June 16, 1906 (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 267 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 155)). It is insisted that the second paragraph of section 3 of that act (34 Stat. 269, 270) repeals the intercourse act of January 30, 1897, supra, which forbade the introduction of intoxicating liquors into the Indian Territory. That section of the enabling act is as follows:
In considering this question we are compelled to assume that the Congress understood not only the status of the Indian, but also what would be the effect of admitting Oklahoma into the Union as a sovereign state under the Constitution. The very title of the enabling act shows that Congress intended Oklahoma to 'be admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original states'; but, if it had intended otherwise, the result would have been the same. Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott Decision, 19 How. 446, 15 L.Ed. 691, in discussing the duties and powers of the federal government in acquiring additional territory, and the admission of states into the Union, said:
In Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U.S. 289, 8 Sup.Ct. 113, 31 L.Ed. 149, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the full court, in discussing the respective powers of the state of Michigan and the federal government, as affected by the ordinance of 1787, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
... ... ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. et al. No. 3,054. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 10, 1911 ... 382; United States ex rel. v. United States ... Express Co. (D.C.) 180 F. 1006 ... The ... requirement ... ...
-
Coyle v. Smith
...579, 52 L. Ed. 881; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S. Ct. 110, 36 L. Ed. 1018. ¶66 In United States ex rel. Friedman et al. v. U.S. Express Co. (D. C.) 180 F. 1006, Rogers, District Judge, said: "It must therefore be conceded that, when Oklahoma was admitted under the feder......
-
Gearlds v. Johnson
... ... v. JOHNSON et al. No. 1,007. United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division ... reservation, it has done so by express words. The Kansas ... Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (18 L.Ed. 667); ... ...
-
Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. State
... ... United States of liquor dealers," or "to any other ... person ... In Commonwealth v. People's ... Express Co., 201 Mass. 564, 88 N.E. 420, 131 Am. St ... Rep. 416, ... ...