The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1923-07-27
IMPORTANT COURT DECISIONS
Edited by Boyd P. Doty
Attorney World League Against Alcoholism

This is unique and interesting case
and involves the adaptation of the
machinery of the trial courts of any
state to the arrest and preliminary
hearing of any person for the violation
of any part of the national prohibition
act. ttzr a7 a-sl'
Section IA of the revised Statutes of
the United States provides:
For any crime or offense against
the United States, the offender may, by
any justice or judge of the. United
States or by any commissioner or
circuit court to take bail, or by any
chancellor, judge of a supreme or SUI,
perior court, chief or first Judge of
common pleas, mayor of city, justice
of the peace, OR OTHER MAGIS-
TRATE, OF ANY STATE, where he
may be found, and agreeably to the
usual mode of process against the Of
tenders in such state, and at the ex-
pense of the United States, be arrested
and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case
may be, FOR TRIAL before such
court of the United States as by law
has cognizance of the offense. Copies
of the process shall be returned as
speedily as may be into the clerks
Office of such court, together with the
recognizance of the witnesses for their
appearance to testify in the case, ETC."
That section is made applicable to
the enforcement of the National Pro-
hibition Act by its express terms in
Title 2, Section 2.
The Massachusetts, Supreme Court
held that the respondent (trial JUSTICE
does not contend that the laws of this
Commonwealth authorize the action
taken by him. His position is that,
being a judge of district court of this
Commonwealth, he was clothed with
authority to do that which he did by
the section of the federal statute al
ready quoted. That section was first
enacted by St. 1889 c. 20 S. 80, and
has been in force continuously since
then. Its scope and meaning are
within the final jurisdiction of the
supreme court of the United States.
The general subject has several times
been considered by that tribunal. The
Court then cites the following de-
cisions OF the United States Supreme
Court: PRIGG V. PENNSYL-
VANIA, 10 Peters $50 at 622; U. S.
V. JONES, 100 United States 513, $40,
$40; ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN,
los U. S. US; Eek PARTE GIST, 20
Alabama $50; DALLEMAGNE v.
MOISAN, 1917 U. S. 100 (p. 174).
In support of the doctrine that if
Congress authorizes judicial officers of
the serveral states to exercise certain
powers or perform certain duties and
such powers or duties are not prohibit
ed by the laws Of the state, any such
acts done by such officers are author
lied, the court quoted from Dali
LEMAGNE v. MOISAN, supra, as
follows:
at has long been held that power
may be conferred upon state officer,
as such to execute duty imposed un-
der an act Of Congress, and the officer
may execute the same, unless its exc
cution is prohibited by the constitu-
ton or legislation of the state"
The gist OF the Massachusetts court
opinion then follows:
"The validity of said Section 1914
stands on the same footing as natural
ization laws of Congress comforting
jurisdiction over that subject upon
state tribunals, which is firmly estab-
lished. GLADHILL, PETITIONER,
8 Met, 1853. STEPHENS, PETI-
TONER, 4 Gray, $50, SOL. COUNTY
OF HAMPDEN v. MORRIS, 2o7
Mass, 81. COUNTY OF BERK-.