Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-03
NO TRADING
LEGAL IN DISTRICT
United States Supreme Court
UphoIds Act of Congress
Forbidding Their Use.
JURISDICTION IN CASES
RESTS IN POLICE COURT
Opinion of Court Handed Down by
Mr.. Justice Holmes.
HABEAs CORPUS WRIT BARRED
The Court Holds 1t Cannot Be Made
to Perform the Function of
Writ of Error-Congress
Within Its Rights.

writ OF Error-Congress
Within It's Rights.
The Supreme Court of the United
States today denied the application for
writ of habeas corpus i'm the trading
stamp case, upheld the validity Of the act
of Congress under which the case was
prosecuted. affirmed the jurisdiction OF
the Police Court of the District of Co
lumbia over such cases and urheld on
every point the contentious of the cor
poration counsel Of the District i'm the
case. The decision makes the issuing OF
trading stamps a gift enterprise in viola
ton of law.
The decision was announced by Mr..
Justice Hughes, and was the first handed
down at today's session of the court.
Police Court Jurisdiction.
At the outset Justice Hughes said that
the only question before the court was
whether the Police Court of the District
of Columbia had Jurisdiction over the
case. He recited the history of the liti-
cation from its inception in the Police
Court.
Justice Hughes declared that an appIi-
cation for writ of habeas corpus can
not be made to perform the FUNCTION OF
writ of error.
The act Of 1871 was a licensing aci,
which was repealed by the act of 1915.
and the latter expressly forbade gift en-
terprises. Justice Hughes explained, add
ing that the prohibition was clearly in
the right OF Congress to make. and that
gift enterprises were within the list of
onenses against which Congress could
legislate.
I'm hearing this application" MIR.
Justice Hughes said, this court does
not sit to review the correctness OF
conclusion Of the Police Court as to the
violation of the statutes by the petit
toner or Of the decision Of the Court
OF Appeals of the District of Columbia
as to the .sufficiency of the information
filed against him.
THE question here is not one. of guilt
or innocence. but simply whether the
court below had Jurisdiction to try the
issues. And as We find that the statutes
conferred that Jurisdiction the applica-
ticn for writ Of habeas corpus must be
denied.
1T will be observed that while section
1176. Revised Statutes of tie United
States. refers to the District act of 1871
and to gift enterprises as therein de-
scrfbed. II does not treat that descrip-
ton as exclusive II assumes that there
are other gift enterprises than those de-
fined in the act OF 1871. 1t denounces
does not limit the provisions to the trans
actions which previously had been
licensed under the act of 1871, but eX-
pressly includes gift enterprises con-
Quoted I'm any manner as defined in said
acts or otherwise
THE purpose of section 11I6 was TO
disapprove and repeal the former authoii-
zation, but not to establish an exclusive
definition based upon II. The language
OF section 1875 conclusively negatives
such an intention.
1T follows that section 1t17 is not con-
A1laS
the act Of 1871. Even If il were assumed
that the condemnation contained i'm 111S
OF the transaction particularly described
in the act of 1871 was too sweeping. ant
that Congress went beyond its power ia
giving the prohibition so wide scope
this would not affect the provisions of
1177, relating, as we have seen 10
recognized category of offenses for which
1t Is within the power of Congress To
prescribe punishment
whether il be read alone or in ths
light Of its context, section 1177 cannot
be adjudged invalid. and il is upon this
section that the information was made.
I'VE have statute with va Id opera
ton. This being esta blished there can
be no question that it conferred upon the
Police Court by its expressed terms juris-
diction of the offenSe. and the courts
tried and convicted the petitioner
"Giyen a valid enactment the question
ii to be one dema nding judici'''
whether particular case
falls within the prohibition is for the
of the courts to which has
been confided jurisdiction over the class
Of cases to which the statutes relate.
Must Go Out of Business.
THE trading stamp companies must
20 out of business in the District of
Columbia The decision of the SUI
preme Court of the United states.
handed down today by MT justice
Ianx Inc -
agent for the Sperry q Hutchlns"n
Company for writ of habeas corpus
which would have permitted a rehear-
ing of the case by the Supreme Court:
and declaring the gift enterprise law or
the District constitutional, has put an
end to the case and the companies must
quit in the District.
This statement was made today To
Star reporter. after the decision or tho
Supreme Court was announced. by Leon
Tobriner who was private counsel for
the retail merchants OF Mash,ns,om
who were fighting the trading stamp
"The case against Walter J: Gregory.
he agent for the Sperry & Hutchpson
Company, was brought first in the Ponce
Court. The defendant was discharged by
he Police Court. and the government
hen took an appeal to the District Cour@
IF Appeals. The Court of Appeals re-
,ersed the decision of the Police court
md also declared the gift enterprise act
- the District under which the prosecu-
ion had been brought, to be constitu-
ional.
I'm an attempt to have the case re-
yiewed by the Supreme Court Of the
Tnited States the defendants applied for
, writ of certiorari. This was denied by
he Suureme Court. The case then went
,ack TO the Police Court. under mandate
w the Court of Appeals, and Gregory
vas tried on the facts in the case. He
vas sentenced to serve a Jail sentence or
,ay a fine. In order to get the case before
he Supreme Court by q writ Of habeas
orpus Gregory elected to. take the jail
entence The decision today denies the
vrit of habeas corpus, and Gregory must
erve the JAIL sentence or pay the fine.
"Justice HI ghes, in his decision. de-
Jared that both sections of the gift en-
erprise law were constitutional. and that
he Activities of the SpeIry & Hutchinson
company properly came under that law.
md finally that the Police Court had
urisdiction in the case and could convict
"The Ecoaomy Voucher Company. a
neal company which has been doing q
imilar busiress, and against which suit
las been brought. though IL was held up
,endinz the decision of the Supreme
srs,,vf rendered TODAY. is affected by the