Court Opinion

ID: 9638258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:38:58.512571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:12.261675
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
The F. A. S. Officers Club is an organization composed of several thousand army officers who are on duty at the United States Fort Sill Military Reservation.1 The Club *275is managed by a secretary who is an army officer in active service. It provides, among other things, an officers’ mess, living quarters for a number of officers, lounges, reading rooms, and other recreational facilities, and renders various club services to its members.
Prior to October 24, 1942, several hundred members of the Club gave to the Club secretary their individual written orders for varying quantities of intoxicating liquor. These orders designated the brand and quantity desired and were accompanied by checks or money to pay for such intoxicating liquor. The Club secretary, acting for such officers, assembled, tabulated, totaled, and forwarded these orders to M. B. Gintz Company, at East St. Louis, Illinois. The Gintz Company accepted the orders and in fulfillment thereof, on 'October 24, 1942, delivered to Yellow Cab Transit Company2 at East St. Louis, on a uniform bill of lading, 225 cases of wine and spirituous liquors, consigned to F. A. S. Officers Club Mess, at the Reservation.
While such shipment was in the possession of the Transit Company as a common carrier and in the course of transit from East St. Louis to the Reservation, but while it was momentarily stopped at the terminal and dock of the Transit Company at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, it was seized by Johnson, Commissioner of Public Safety of the State of Oklahoma, Husted, Superintendent of the Bureau of Identification and Investigation of the Department of Public Safety of Oklahoma, West and Riggs, deputies under the Superintendent, and McGrew and Kolb, deputy sheriffs of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,3 and was transported to and placed in a vault in the county courthouse of Oklahoma County, where it is held under the claim that it is an illegal shipment of intoxicating liquor subject to confiscation and destruction.
Had the shipment been delivered at the Reservation, it would have been received by the secretary of the Club for delivery to the officers who had placed the order.
This action was commenced by the Transit Company against the state enforcement officers for a mandatory injunction requiring them to hold the shipment in status quo pending the determination of the action and requiring them to return the shipment to the Transit Company and to refrain from interfering with the Transit Company’s possession and movement of such shipment in interstate commerce to its destination.
From a judgment granting the relief prayed for, the state enforcement officers have appealed.
The Reservation is located wholly within the exterior boundaries of Oklahoma. It was acquired by the United States from France long before Oklahoma became a state. Since prior to the admission of Oklahoma as a state it has been, and it now is, used exclusively for military purposes and for the performance of the functions of the War Department of the United States. In 1913, the state of Oklahoma enacted a statute ceding exclusive jurisdiction over the Reservation, with certain exceptions not here material, to the United States.4
Oklahoma has power under the Twenty-first Amendment to forbid all importations of intoxicating liquor into the state or to adopt a lesser degree of regulation than total prohibition.5 It may also require a permit for the transportation of intoxicating liquor in interstate commerce through the state as a means of establishing the identity of those who engage in such transportation and their routes and points of destination, and of enabling local officers to take appropriate measures to insure transportation without diversion.6
Oklahoma has not enacted any statutes regulating the transportation of intoxicating liquor through the state. It requires a permit for transportation of liquor into the state.7
While the Twenty-first Amendment increased the power of the state with respect to importation into the state, it did not extend the territorial jurisdiction of the state. Territorial jurisdiction over the Reservation is in the United States, a dis*276tinct sovereignty, and the Twenty-first Amendment gave the state no power to prohibit importation of intoxicating liquor into the Reservation or to regulate the transportation, possession, sale, or other disposition of such liquor within the Reservation. There was no transportation into Oklahoma for delivery or use therein. The shipment was consigned for delivery in the Reservation.8 We conclude, therefore, that the seizure by the state enforcement officers was without warrant of law and was wholly illegal.
The Assimilative Crimes Act9 provides that whoever, within the territorial limits of a state, within .or upon any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, shall do any act or thing which is not made penal by any act of Congress, but which if committed within the jurisdiction of the state, by the laws thereof in force on February 1, 1940, would be penal, shall be deemed guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.
The Assimilative Crimes Act adopted, for the government of the designated places under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, the criminal laws in force, on the date mentioned in the Act, in the several states within which such places are situated, in so far as such laws have not been displaced by specific acts of Congress. By adoption they became Federal laws in force in the designated places.10
It is urged that the statutes of Oklahoma hereinafter referred to were put in force in the Reservation as Federal statutes by the Assimilative Crimes Act, and that by virtue thereof it is unlawful to import intoxicating liquor into the Reservation, to keep or maintain a club room in which intoxicating liquor is received, kept, or stored for distribution or division among the members of the Club, to receive intoxicating liquor from a common carrier, or to possess intoxicating liquor; and it is asserted that relief should have been denied by virtue of the maxim ex dolo malo non’ oritur actio. In dealing with this contention we assume, but do not decide, that the Oklahoma penal statutes relating to intoxicating liquor were put in force in the Reservation as Federal statutes by the Assimilative Crimes Act; neither do we decide that, if importation into the Reservation would violate a Federal statute, injunctive relief against the unlawful acts of the enforcement officers should be denied.11
Sec. 4, ch. 153, O.S.L.1933, 37 O.S.A. § 31, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to have or keep in excess of one quart of intoxicating liquor “whether such liquor be intended for the personal use of the person so having and keeping the same or not.” The foregoing section was originally enacted as § 4, ch. 70, O.S.L.1910-11. In Ex parte Wilson, 6 Okl.Cr. 451, 119 P. 596, it was held unconstitutional on the ground that it is not within the police power of the state to prohibit possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use.
Sec. 5, ch. 70, O.S.L.1910-11, 37 O.S.A. § 32,12 was unconstitutional for the same reason. Morse v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 445, 77 P.2d 757, 763, which cited Ex parte Wilson, supra, with approval. See, also, Brickey v. State, 55 Okl.Cr. 451, 32 P.2d 743, 744. It was superseded by § 6, ch. 26, O.S.L.19I3, as amended by § 3, ch. 153, O.S.L. 1933, 37 O.S.A. § 82.13 The last-mentioned section does not make mere possession of intoxicating liquor unlawful; it merely makes possession óf in excess of one quart of intoxicating liquor prima facie evidence of an intention to convey, sell, or otherwise dispose of such liquor; and the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that mere possession of intoxicating liquor without an intent to sell, barter, or give away such liquor does not constitute an offense under the Oklahoma *277statutes.14 We conclude, therefore, that the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use and not for unlawful sale or other disposition is not prohibited in Oklahoma and, therefore, is not prohibited within the Reservation by virtue of the Assimilative Crimes Act.
Sec. 1, ch. 186, O.S.L.1917, 37 O.S.A. § 38, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to receive within Oklahoma any intoxicating liquor from a common or other carrier, or to possess in Oklahoma any intoxicating liquor received from a common or other carrier, and that its provisions shall apply to “such liquors intended for personal use, as well as otherwise, and to interstate as well as intrastate shipments or carriage.” .Since, under the decisions in Ex parte Wilson and Morse v. State, supra, possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use may not be prohibited, it would seem that this section is unconstitutional. If it is beyond the power of the legislature to make unlawful the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use, it must likewise be beyond its power to make unlawful the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use received from a common carrier.
Sec. 3610, O.R.L.1910, as amended by § 1, ch. 13, O.S.L.1927, 37 O.S.A. § 6, provides that it shall be unlawful to keep or maintain any club room where intoxicating liquor is received, kept, or stored for sale or for distribution or division among members of such club. We cannot say upon the facts here presented that the receipt of such shipment by the secretary of the Club and the delivery to the officers of their several orders embraced in the shipment would constitute a violation by the Club of the foregoing section. It seems to us that under the facts it could not be said that the Club received, kept, or stored the liquor for sale or for distribution to its members. The distribution was not to be made among the members of the Club, but among the officers who had given the order. The Club’s secretary merely acted as their agent. Indeed, counsel for the state enforcement officers in their brief say, “The club, of course, appears to have no actual connection with this liquor.”
Sec. 3605, O.R.L.1910, as amended by § 2, ch. 153, O.S.L.1933, 37 O.S.A. § 1, makes it unlawful to “ship, or in any way convey” intoxicating liquor “from one place within this state to another place therein.” This section deals entirely with intrastate transportation. It has no application to transportation from without the state of Oklahoma into such state, or into the Reservation.
Sec. 1, p. 16, O.S.L.1939,15 provides that it shall be unlawful to import into the state of Oklahoma intoxicating liquor containing more than four per cent of alcohol by volume, without a permit therefor secured as provided in the Act. The Act provides for an application to the State Tax Commission for such a permit and for the issuance of the permit by the Tax Commission. We think it clear that this Act can have no application within the Reservation. Congress has made no provision for a permit and Oklahoma has no jurisdiction to require or grant permits for the importation of intoxicating liquor into the Reservation, or to otherwise regulate such importation.16 Since there is no way to obtain a permit to import intoxicating liquor into the Reservation, one who imports liquor into the Reservation should not be held criminally responsible for not securing a permit which he could not obtain. To hold otherwise would make the Oklahoma statute, by virtue of the Assimilative Crimes Act, not a prohibition against importation into the Reservation without a permit, but a total prohibition against such importation.
By the provisions of 10 U.S.C.A. § 1350, 31 Stat. 758, the sale of beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors in any post exchange, canteen, or army transport is prohibited. Here, there was no sale within the Reservation. The sale was consummated in East St. Louis. It was contemplated only that there should be a transportation of the intoxicating liquor into the Reservation and a delivery thereof to the Club secretary as agent for the army officers who placed the order. This, in our opinion, did not constitute a violation of § 1350, supra.
Accordingly, we conclude that the transportation of the intoxicating liquor in*278to the Reservation and the delivery thereof to the Club secretary for delivery to the officers who joined in the order would not constitute a Federal offense under the Assimilative Crimes Act, or under § 1350, supra.
The judgment is affirmed.

 Hereinafter called the Reservation.

 Hereinafter called the Transit Company.

 Hereinafter called the state enforcement officers.

 See 80 O.S.1941 § 4; Act of June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1938, 40 U.S.C.A. § 290; Act of October 9, 1940, 54 Stat. 1059, 4 U.S.C.A. §§ 13-18.

 State Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. 38; Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corporation, 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424.

 Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390, 396, 62 S.Ct. 311, 86 L.Ed. 294, 138 A.L.R. 1144.

 37 O.S. 1941 §§ 41-45.

 See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 58 S.Ct. 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502.

 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 451, 468.

 Franklin v. United States, 216 U.S. 559, 568, 30 S.Ct. 434, 54 L.Ed. 615; United States v. Press Publishing Company, 219 U.S. 1, 8, 31 S.Ct. 212, 55 L.Ed. 65, 21 Ann.Cas. 942; People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Company, 302 U.S. 253, 266, 58 S.Ct. 167, 82 L.Ed. 235.

 Cf. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct. 681, 34 L.Ed. 128; Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 S.Ct. 1062, 31 L.Ed. 700; McFarland v. American Sugar Refg. Co., 241 U.S. 79, 84, 85, 36 S.Ct. 498, 60 L.Ed. 899; Barnett v. State, 243 Ala. 410, 9 So.2d 267, 268; McCanless v. Graham, 177 Tenn. 57, 146 S.W.2d 137, 138.

 It provided that it should be unlawful for any person to have or keep in or about his place of residence more than one gallon of intoxicating liquor.

 Whitwell v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 192, 114 P.2d 489, 490; Young v. State, 74 Okl.Cr. 64, 123 P.2d 294, 299.

 Whitwell v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 192, 114 P.2d 489, 490; Haltom v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 117, 50 P.2d 744, 746; Hull v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 12, 65 P.2d 423, 425; Stump v. State, 68 Okl.Cr. 391, 92 P.2d 616, 619; Knighton v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 322, 79 P.2d 1030, 1032; Robinson v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 75, 108 P.2d 196, 198.

 37 O.S.1941, §§ 41-48.

 Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 58 S.Ct. 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502.