Document: 347 U.S. 381 74 S.Ct. 566 98 L.Ed. 785 UNITED STATESv.DIXON. No. 500. Argued March 12, 1954. Decided April 5, Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for appellant. No appearance appellee. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The sole question here is whether §§ 3116 and 3115 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A., make it a criminal offense to possess property intended use in producing nontax-paid distilled spirits violation Code. Appellee was indicted under these sections wilfully knowingly possessing 800 pounds sugar parts still proscribed purpose. On motion District Court, relying on dictum court appeals decision,1 dismissed indictment ground that § 'preventative remedial rather than criminal, does not define offense.' Government appealed directly this Court Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. 3731, U.S.C.A. 3731. 346 930, 320. 2 Section Code captioned 'Forfeitures seizures', provides pertinent part: 'It shall be unlawful have or any liquor violating provisions part, internal-revenue laws * no rights exist such property. Nothing section manner limit affect forfeiture provision laws, other law. *' also search warrants procedure seizure forfeiture. bears caption 'Penalties' anyone 'this part' which special penalty prescribed 'shall liable, first offense, exceeding $1,000, imprisonment thirty days, both *.' two are included within same 'part' Code.2 3 appellant's position makes punishable by fine imprisonment; contains making part internal revenue laws; hence alleging possession charges crime. We agree so hold. think plain language read together can lead only conclusion acts may result but likewise made general 3115. 4 involved were borrowed, with changes insignificant present purposes, from National Prohibition Act 1919, 41 Stat. 305 et seq. There appeared as 25 (compare 3116) 29 3115) Title II, presented statutory pattern virtually identical one. It most persuasive courts consistently upheld prosecutions brought analogous act designed manufacture II Act.3 5 This consistency interpretation, followed Congress' utilization provisions, helpful dealing limitation penalties applicable where 'special penalty' provided offense. As de novo proposition might argued penalty, forfeiture, provided. But argument available equal force appears barred prosecution. Moreover, 'Nothing laws'. would seem settle point. 6 Clearly Congress impose civil sanction respect act; neither unusual nor constitutionally objectionable. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 1938, 303 391, 399—400, 58 630, 633, 82 917. Likewise common drafting legislation declare certain one set forth their commission another.4 7 suggestion face statute meant nothing more comes its caption, supplied codifiers 1939. enacting 'The arrangement classification several been purpose convenient orderly same, and, therefore, inference, implication presumption legislative construction drawn reason location grouping particular portion thereof, outline, analysis, cross reference, descriptive matter relating contents said given legal effect.' 53 1a. To accomplish primary bringing all operative them comprehensible, 'liberal catchwords.'5 Typically, subchapter entitled 'Industrial Alcohol' Alcohol Plants'; yet even narrow interpretation terms sense limited industrial alcohol. 8 So far light had history, meager inconclusive, way militating against meaning we attribute statute. 9 Reversed. 10 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS, Mr., JACKSON MINTON concur, dissenting. 11 Respondent having his sugar, wooden barrels, metal cap, heater box mash pipe, 'intended use' unlawfully evading taxes. failure charge I agree. did clearly 'unlawful' hold an use. crime; nevertheless holds crime 3115(b). That itself merely authorizes violations do themselves prescribe penalty.' Hence cannot apply 3116, because latter prescribes own penalty'—seizure plainly since there practical difference between taking man's money fine. And has specifically add dubious implication. 12 accepted practice construing statutes narrowly should especially appropriate nature 'crime' involved. Court's innocent property, automobile, if possessor intends illegally, he done so. Guilt depend wholly what defendant's mind. well unwilling sanctions unexpressed intention something attempted. Kent United States, Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 1. States Windle, 158 196. In those cases invoked section; applied proceeding, characterization preventative obviously accurate. reported previously faced squarely indictments. Blair, D.C.1951, 97 F.Supp. 718; Harvin, D.C.1950, 91 249. Godette 1952, 199 331, issue apparently raised. Part ('Industrial Plants') Subchapter C Alcohol') Chapter ('Liquor'). full text follows: Penalties '(a) Violations operation plants withdrawal taxable Whoever operates alcohol plant denaturing without complying lawful regulations thereunder, whoever withdraws attempts withdraw secure tax free subject tax, otherwise violates lawfully thereunder both, second cognate less $100 $10,000, days year. Commissioner refuse period year permit upon premises person responsible degree violation. '(b) general. Any issued prescribed, liable subsection (a). duty prosecuting officer ascertain, case every defendant convicted plead prior conviction affidavit, information, indictment. '(c) Previous conviction. If law regard taxation of, traffic in, intoxicating liquor, bar prosecution therefor other. 3116. Forfeitures seizures used, A warrant title XI June 15, 1917, 40 228, disposition subsequent proceeds sale accordance existing hereafter existence seizures, forfeitures, proceeds, laws.' E.g., Reynolds 1922, 280 F. 1; Adamson 1924, 296 110; Staker 1925, 312; Patrilo 804, 805. Compare Page 278 41. Fair Labor Standards 215, 216, 216; (narcotics), 2553, 2554, 2557, 2557. H.R.Rep. 6, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S.Rep. 20, 3.

Category: 0