ALSTON
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.
Alston was convicted under the Harrison Narcotic Act for purchasing morphine and cocaine from unstamped packages in violation of amended Section 1. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that Congress had properly imposed the stamp tax requirement as a valid exercise of its taxing power and that Section 9 of the Act provided adequate criminal penalties for violation of the amended provisions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa, an indictment with three counts, filed December 2, 1924, charged Alston with violating § 1, Harrison Narcotic Act, approved December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785, as amended February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1130, 1131, by purchasing morphine and cocaine from unstamped packages. He pleaded “guilty” and was sentenced to the penitentiary. A writ of error took the cause to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, and it asked our instruction upon certain questions. Thereupon, we required the entire record to be sent here for final determination of the whole matter. § 239, Jud. Code.
Sections 1 and 6 of the Harrison Narcotic Act were amended by the Act of February 24, 1919, and, as thus .amended, were reenacted without change by §§ 1005 and 1006, Revenue Act approved November 23, 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 298, 300. The amending Act added the following provisions (among others) to Section 1.
“That there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon opium, coca leaves, any compound, salt, derivative, or preparation thereof,- produced in or imported into the United States, and sold, or removed for consumption or sale, an internal-revenue tax ,at the rate of 1 cent per ounce, and any fraction of an ounce in a package shall be taxed as an ounce, such tax to be paid by the importer, manufacturer, producer, or compounder thereof, and to be represented by appropriate stamps, to be provided by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with .the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury; and the stamps.herein provided shall be so affixed to the bottle or other container as to securely seal the stopper, covering, or wrapper thereof.
“ The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on the aforesaid drugs.
“ It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, sell, dispense, or' distribute any of the aforesaid drugs except in the original stamped package or from the • original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate tax-paid stamps from any of the aforesaid drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found; and the possession of any original stamped package containing any of the aforesaid drugs by any person who has. not registered and paid special taxes as required by this section shall be prima facie evidence of liability to such special tax:. Provided, . .' .”
Section 9 of the original Harrison Act has remained without change. It provides: “ That any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Act shall, on conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
The judgment of the trial court is assailed upon two grounds: That Congress has failed to prescribe any punishment for the purchase of drugs from unstamped packages, forbidden by amended § 1. And, that the entire Act, as amended, is invalid because Congress has undertaken thereby to regulate matters beyond its powers and within exclusive control of the States.
Section 9, above quoted, obviously applies to the requirements of the amended Act as well as to those found in the original. The first objection has no merit.
The present cause arises under those provisions of § 1 which impose a stamp' tax on certain drugs and declare it unlawful to purchase or sell them except in or from original stamped packages. These provisions are clearly within the power of Congress to lay taxes and have no necessary connection with any requirement of the Act which may be subject to reasonable disputation. 'They do not absolutely prohibit buying or selling; have produced substantial revenue; contain nothing to indicate that by colorable use of taxation Congress is attempting to invade the reserved powers of the States. The impositions are not penalties.
The judgment of the trial court must be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)…qua sales, a matter entirely beyond the authority of Congress, but at sales of such drugs in violation of the requirements set forth in §§ 1 and 2, enacted as aids to the enforcement of the stamp tax imposed by the act. See Alston v. United States, 274 U. S. 289, 294; Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341, 345, 351. Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisio…
-
Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1928)…ds for uneasiness can be considered only by another power. The statute is much more obviously a revenue measure now than when United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, was decided, and is said to produce a considerable return. Alston v. United States, 274 U. S. 289, 294. It is too late to attempt to overthrow the whole act on Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20. It is said also that no opium is produced in the United States, and at all events the statute has been so modified that now at least United States v.…
-
Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1960)…gressional authority to enact narcotics laws — rested on the Commerce Clause, Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218; Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178; or the taxing power, United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86; Alston v. United States, 274 U. S. 289; Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 351-354; United States v. Sanchez, 340 U. S. 42—is not broad enough to encompass the legislation of immunity against state prosecution under state narcotics laws, “a subject that has traditionally been within…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1911)
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926)
- Hill, JR. v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1922)
- United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1916)
- Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1922)
- McCRAY v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1904)
- Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1918)
- United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1919)
- Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1925)
- Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 (U.S. 1869)