KENNEDY ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kennedy and others were convicted of possessing whiskey in Indian Country in Oklahoma in violation of federal statutes enacted in 1892, 1897, and 1918 that criminalized such possession to protect Native Americans. The Supreme Court held that these Indian Country liquor statutes were not repealed or superseded by the National Prohibition Act, as the two sets of laws addressed different offenses and did not conflict with each other.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Act of July 23, 1892, c. 234, 27 Stat. 260, and its amendments,1 the Act of January 30, 1897, c. 109, 29 Stat. 506, and the Act of May 25,1918, c. 86, 40 Stat. 563, make the possession of intoxicating liquor in the Indian Country, as therein defined, a criminal offense. The plaintiffs in error were indicted and convicted of having whiskey in their possession in the Indian Country, in Osage County, Oklahoma, on July 24, 1920, in violation of the acts above mentioned. The case was taken on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit and that court, under § 239 of the Judicial Code, certified a question of law to this Court. It is this:
“Was that portion of the Act of July 23, 1892, Section 4136a, Comp. Stat., as amended by the Act of January 30, 1897, Section 4137, Comp. Stat., and by the Act of May 25, 1918, Section 4137a, Comp. Stat., which made possession of intoxicating liquor in the Indian Country a criminal offense and fixed the punishment therefor repealed, superseded or modified by the enactment of the National Prohibition Act, 41 Statutes at Large, 305, 308, Title II, Sections 3, 25, 29, 33 and 35?”
The Act of 1918 provides that “ possession by a person of intoxicating liquors in the Indian country where the introduction is or was prohibited by treaty or Federal statute shall be an offense and punished in accordance with” the above mentioned Acts of 1892 and 1897. Mere possession is made criminal. The purpose of the possession or the intended use is not material. The particular place and its character, Indian Country, are essential. The evils aimed at are those which result from liquor traffic in localities where Indians live or which they are liable to frequent. These statutes apply locally for the special purpose of keeping whiskey and other intoxicants out of the reach of Indians.
By the Eighteenth Amendment, the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors, in the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes is prohibited. The National Prohibition Act was passed to enforce that Amendment. Liquor for non-beverage purposes may be purchased, sold and possessed as specified in that act, but not in violation of the legislation relating to the Indian Country. See Title II, §§ 3, 4, 6, 13, 25, 33, 37.
The offense charged against plaintiffs in error is not the same as any defined in the National Prohibition Act. Those portions of the Acts of 1892, 1897 and 1918, passed for the protection of the Indian Country, mentioned in the certificate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, do not conflict with the National Prohibition Act. Both may stand. The repealing clause contained in § 35 is: “All provisions of law that are inconsistent with this Act are repealed only to the extent of such inconsistency . . . , As no incompatibility exists, there is no repeal by implication. Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422, 428; United States v. Greathouse, 166 U. S. 601, 605; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 147; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 58; McClintic v. United States, 283 Fed. 781.
The answer to the question certified is:
No.
See United States v. Wright, 229 U. S. 226; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 531.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Noveck, 273 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1927)…States, 298 Fed. 5, 10. Congress, having power to make both the false swearing and the use of the false affidavit punishable, Albrecht v. United States, ante, p. 1, did so. Compare United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78; Kennedy v. United States, 265 U. S. 344. The fact that perjury is a felony, while filing a false return is only a misdemeanor, presented no obstacle. Compare United States v. Lawrence, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,572. There is nothing in the history of the revenue legislation which should lead us…
-
Story v. Rives, 97 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1938)…Trust Co. v. District of Columbia, 224 U.S. 491, 32 S.Ct. 553, 56 L.Ed. 856; Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 35 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed. 446; American Security & Trust Co. v. Rudolph, 38 App.D.C. 32. See Kennedy v. United States, 265 U.S. 344, 44 S.Ct. 501, 68 L.Ed. 1045; 9 Hughes, Federal Practice, 1931, §§ 6740-6742. See, also, Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 528 et seq., 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264; O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 538-539, 545-546, 53 S.Ct. 740…
-
Morrison v. United States, 6 F.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1925)…Stat. 305 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138]4 et seq.]) ? This question has been answered in the negative by this court in the ease of McClintic v. United States, 283 F. 781, and later by the Supreme Court in the case of Kennedy v. United States, 265 U. S. 344, 44 S. Ct. 501, 68 L. Ed. 1045. [2] 2. Was. the verdict supported by substantial evidence? Parker, a witness called on behalf of the government, testified that he was city marshal of Fairfax, Okl., and deputy sheriff; that on the day in question,…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1914)
- Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1915)
- United States v. Healey, 160 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1895)
- Frost v. Wenie, 157 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1895)
- United States v. Greathouse, 166 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1897)
- United States v. Wright, 229 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1913)