United States v. Simpson

252 U.S. 465, 40 S. Ct. 364, 64 L. Ed. 665, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1524

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: April 19, 1920
• Docket: 444
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice Van Devanteb

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an indictment under § 5 of the Act of March 3, 1917, known as the Reed Amendment, c. 162, 39 Stat. 1069, which declares that “ whoever shall . . . cause intoxicating liquors to be transported in interstate commerce, except for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, and mechanical purposes, into any State . . . the laws of which . . . prohibit the manufacture or sale therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes shall be punished,” etc.; and the question for decision is whether the statute was applicable where the liquor — five quarts of whiskey — was transported by its owner in his own automobile and was for his personal use, and not for an excepted purpose. The District Court answered the question in the negative and on that ground sustained a demurrer to the third count, which is all that is here in question, and discharged the accused. 257 Fed. Rep. 860.

We think the question should have been answered the other way. The evil against which the statute was directed was the introduction of intoxicating liquor into a prohibition State from another State for purposes other than those specially excepted, — a matter which Congress could and the States could not control. Danciger v. Cooley, 248 U. S. 319, 323. The' introduction could be effected only through transportation, and whether this took one form or another it was transportation in interstate commerce. Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 1; United States v. Chavez, 228 U. S. 525, 532-533; United States v. Mesa, 228 U. S. 533; Pipe Line Cases, 234 U. S. 548, 560; United States v. Hill, 248 U. S. 420. The statute makes no distinction between different modes of transportation and we think it was intended to include them all, that being the natural import of its words. Had Congress intended to confine it to transportation by railroads and other common carriers it well may be assumed that other words appropriate to the expression of that intention would have been used. And it also may be assumed that Congress foresaw that if the statute were thus confined it could be so readily and extensively evaded by the use of automobiles, auto-trucks and other private vehicles that it would not be of much practical benefit. See Kirmeyer v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 568. At all events, we perceive no reason for rejecting the natural import of its words and holding that it was confined to transportation for hire or by . public carriers.

The' published decisions show that a number of the federal courts have regarded the statute as embracing transportation by automobile, and have applied it in cases where the transportation was personal and private, as here. Ex parte Westbrook, 250 Fed. Rep. 636; Malcolm v. United States, 256 Fed. Rep. 363; Jones v. United States, 259 Fed. Rep. 104; Berryman v. United States, 259 Fed. Rep. 208.

That the liquor was intended for the personal use of the person transporting it is not material, so long as it was not for any of the purposes specially excepted. This was settled in United States v. Hill, supra.

We conclude that the District Court erred in construing the statute and sustaining the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.