Albuquerque morning journal., 1922-12-12
VICTORY IS WON
BY COVE RNMENT
BY DECISION IN
A LIQUOR CASE
LiQuor Law VioIator8 May
Be Prosecuted by the
State and the United
States, Court Decides
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
CONTENTION LOST



Washington, Dee. 1.-Two cases
considered by the government OF
major importance in the enforce
menr Of national prohibition were
decided by the supreme court to-
day. In one Of tFaT coming from
tho state Of Washington, the gov
ernmenL scored a sweeping victory
the supreme court holding that
both the federal and O state gov
ernment can prosecute and punish
the same unlawful acts in the man
ufacture, possession, transportation
or sale of Intoxicating liquors
The Other Case
The other ease coming from
California, the government lost in
its contention that in the enforce
ment Of national prohibition an
executive officer can impose ana
collect as taxes the assessments
and penalties imposed by those
sections of the revised statutes
which remain dnrepealed by the
Nolstead act and which became
law while the manufacture and
sale Of intoxicating liquor was not
prohibited.
The United states district court
for western Washington dismissed
a federal indictment charging Nltu
Lama, Dick BurtO and others with
transportation and possession OF
intoxicating liquors on tho ground
that they had been tried and con
yicted in the state courts Tor the
same otfense. In reversing tins ac-
tiou today the supreme court held
that "in the absence Of special pro-
vision by congress, conviction ana
punishment in state court under
a state law for mating, transport
ing and selling intoNiattng liquors
is not u bar to prosecution IN y
court of the United States lnder
| lthc federal laws for the same acts
Each state, as also congress
il added. may exercise an lndc-
/ pendent Judgment in selecting ana
shaping mea5urt9 tp enforce PEP
/ hibition Such as arG adopted py
congress become laws Of the United
| states and such as are adopted pY
/ the state become laws of that state.
Tbey may vary in many partlcu :
! lars. including the penalties pre-
/ scribed, but this is an inseparaDlo
/ incident of independent legislative
action in distinct jurisdictions
Double Jeopardy
Referring to tho contention oE
| tho defendants that they could noC
be placed IN ooupIc jeopardy the
court explained that tho meaning
of The term double jeopardy rs
| used In the fifth amendment 10 the
/ constitution referred to "a second
nrosecution under the authority OF
Inc federal government after first
| trim for the same Offense under
tho same authority An act de-
| nounced as a crime by both ma
tional and state sovereigntles' the
! court said, "is an offense against
the peace and dignity of both ana
NAV be punished by each" II such
a construction did not Apply tio
court stated, it would DO easy ~
imagine the rush of offenders 10
state courts to plead guilty, IL py
so doing they could obtain immun
ity from prosecution for the same
act.
The Regal Drug corporation Of
San Francisco obtained permit To
withdraw from bonded warehouses
Intoxicating liquor and wine tot
sale under the prohibition act tot
non-beverage purposes. The per-
nit was cancelled and the collector
of internal revenue imposed upon
the company, in addition to those
provided in the prohibition en-
forcement act, certain taxes ana
penalties carried by unrepealeo
sections of the revised statutes gov
erning the MANUFACTURE and sale OF
distilled spirits and wine, prior to
national prohibition. ...
The supreme court, in an opinion
bv Justice Nick emma, explained thal
the court had held in the case ol
Lipke V. ihderer, collector, decided
last June, that collector Of inter
nal revenue could not punish py
fine and penalty for au alleged
criminal offense without hearing
information, Indictment or trial 10y
jury.