No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
In November, 1930, Judge William Clark of the United States district court in New Jersey achieved nation-wide notoriety by a decision holding that the Eighteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and is therefore not a part of the Constitution. A prosecution had been brought against one Sprague, under an indictment charging unlawful transportation and possession of liquor in violation of the Volstead Act. This indictment Judge Clark quashed on the ground that the Eighteenth Amendment upon which the Volstead Act rests should have been ratified by conventions called for that purpose in three-fourths of the states, rather than by the legislatures of those states. This conclusion he supported by a long argument emphasizing the fundamental character of the constitutional change effected and the importance and necessity of having such a change accomplished by the agency of representatives elected by the people of the several states for that specific purpose. An appeal from Judge Clark's decision was at once taken by the government under the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907. In fact, it was to meet just such situations as this that the act of 1907 was passed; for without the possibility of such appeal a decision of a lower federal court adverse to the constitutionality of a federal criminal statute might be final within the district concerned. No question of double jeopardy is raised by this procedure, since the accused is not placed in jeopardy until the trial jury is sworn and the quashing of the indictment occurs long before that point is reached.
1 282 U.S. 716, 1931.
2 282 U.S. 311, 1931.
3 282 U.S. 216, 1931.
4 283 U.S. 279, 1931.
5 283 U.S. 570, 1931.
6 277 U.S. 218, 1928. See comment in this Review, vol. 23, p. 99Google Scholar.
7 A number of cases presenting somewhat technical questions bearing on the federal power of taxation may be mentioned without discussion. Due process of law in tax collection procedure is involved in Graham v. Goodcell, 282 U.S. 409, 1931. Milliken v. United States, 283 U.S. 15, 1931, and Klein v. United States, 283 U.S. 231, 1931, hold valid under due process the application of the provisions of the federal estate tax to gifts made in contemplation of death before the enactment of the statute. Denman v. Slayton, 282 U.S. 514, 1931, holds that there is no constitutional basis for claiming exemption from federal income taxation of interest on funds used for the purchase and holding of tax-exempt municipal bonds.
8 283 U.S. 423, 1931.
9 45 Stat. at L. 1057, Act of December 21, 1928.
10 Proc. of June 25, 1929, 46 Stat. at L. 20.
11 282 U.S. 367, 1931.
12 282 U.S. 304, 1931.
13 283 U.S. 91, 1931.
14 283 U.S. 473, 1931.
15 283 U.S. 308, 1931.
16 282 U.S. 63, 1930.
17 282 U.S. 344, 1931.
18 282 U.S. 694, 1931.
19 267 U.S. 132, 1925. For comment, see this Review, vol. 20, p. 87Google Scholar.
21 283 U.S. 605, 1931.
21 The Court's decision in U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 1929, is quoted at length and heavily relied upon. For comment, see this Review, vol. 24, p. 86Google Scholar.
22 Those interested in examining further the conflicting viewpoints in these opinions may consult “United States v. Macintosh; A Symposium,” by Wigmore, John H., Sears, Kenneth C., Freund, Ernest, and Green, Frederick, in 26 Illinois Law Review, 375–396 (Dec., 1931)Google Scholar.
23 283 U.S. 636, 1931.
24 282 U.S. 74, 1930.
25 283 U.S. 654, 1931.
26 283 U.S. 776, 1931.
27 283 U.S. 765, 1931.
28 282 U.S. 194, 1931.
29 282 U.S. 740, 1931, and 282 U.S. 760, 1931.
30 283 U.S. 643, 1931.
31 283 U.S. 25, 1931.
32 Act of Oct. 29, 1919, 41 Stat. at L. 324.
33 282 U.S. 30, 1930.
34 283 U.S. 163, 1931.
35 283 U.S. 27, 1931, and same, 283 U.S. 420, 1931.
36 283 U.S. 191, 1931.
37 283 U.S. 202, 1931.
38 282 U.S. 568, 1931.
39 282 U.S. 577, 1931.
39a 282 U.S. 101, 1930.
40 283 U.S. 697, 1931.
41 7 Peters 243, 1833.
42 176 U.S. 581, 1900.
43 211 U.S. 78, 1908.
44 259 U.S. 530, 1922.
45 205 U.S. 454, 1907.
46 254 U.S. 325, 1920.
46a 262 U.S. 390, 1923.
47 268 U.S. 652, 1925.
48 274 U.S. 357, 1927.
49 274 U.S. 380, 1927.
50 283 U.S. 359, 1931.
51 283 U.S. 249, 1931.
52 219 U.S. 453, 1911.
53 240 U.S. 518, 1916.
54 282 U.S. 765, 1931.
55 219 U.S. 114, 1911.
56 219 U.S. 104, 1911.
57 282 U.S. 251, 1931.
58 283 U.S. 553, 1931.
59 282 U.S. 133, 1930.
60 282 U.S. 1, 1930.
61 280 U.S. 204, 1930.
62 For comment, see this Review, vol. 25, p. 90Google Scholar.
63 282 U.S. 241, 1931.
64 283 U.S. 376, 1931.
64a State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 1931.
65 283 U.S. 123, 1931.
66 283 U.S. 96, 1931.
67 282 U.S. 19, 1930.
68 283 U.S. 57, 1931.
69 Other cases involving the equal protection clause are Bain Peanut Company v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 1931; and Wampler v. Lecompte, 282 U.S. 172, 1930.
70 Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 1928.
71 282 U.S. 582, 1931.
72 282 U.S. 440, 1931.
73 282 U.S. 493, 1931.
74 283 U.S. 380, 1931.
75 283 U.S. 465, 1931.
76 253 U.S. 23, 1920.
77 282 U.S. 379, 1931.
78 283 U.S. 183, 1931.
79 277 U.S. 142, 1928.
80 279 U.S. 620, 1929.
81 282 U.S. 509, 1931.
82 283 U.S. 291, 1931.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.