I'EDERAL REPOBTER t
UNITED STATES ".
(DiBtric& COUrt, D. Azaska. May 28,1892.)
Seqtlon U'Of l,he organlo Bot of Alaska, (Aot May 17,1884,) prohibiting the 1m portation, manufaoture, and sale of Intoxicating liquors, and oontlnuing in force ';the provisions of Rev. St. S 1955, in regard thereto, covers the whole SUbject, and hel1Qe repeals all prior laws. These provisions, therefore, together with the regulations made In pursuance thereof .by the president, constitute the ,. Alaska on the subject. NeZ8O'n v. U. S., 80 Fed. Rep. 112, 12 Sawy. Under these prOVisions an Indiotment charging that defendant. on a stated day, dla Unlawfully and willfUlly sell a quantity of Intoxicating liquor to two Indian wpm,en, states a punishable offense; and, as it Is Immaterial under the law whether the sale is to Indians or white persons, the allegation 8S to the Indian women maY' - 1;Ie' Nl.8iar4edall descriptive, or 8S mere surplusage. '
LtQOORS-ILLBGAL BALBs-ALAsKA.-REPBAL 0]1' 8T4TUTB&
William Warwick for selling intoxicating
Judge. On the 18th day of May, 1892, the grand retlll'ned an. indictment against the defendant. he dld,on or about the 24th day of November, 1891, linla and willfully, sell fl intoxicating liquor, commonly ,called to two,pertll-in Indian women therein Qamed. To this defendatltfiles a motion quash on the following grounds: 669 ofthl! OregonCOfle, under which this indictment is brought, the district of Alaska. and is in conflict with the lawlJof ibe United States. and that the offense is one not known to the laws in or applicable to the district of Alaska." The defe1'l.da.tit's counsel claims that section 669 of the Oregon .Code does not apply in this :case, for the reason that section 14 of the organio act, providing, for a civil government in Alaska, and section 1955 of the with the. regulations of the president in relation fully cover the subject of .the importation, manufacture, andBlU6 of liquor in this. district. Section 14 of the organic act reads 8S follows: ,. "That the provisions of, chapter three. title twenty-three, of the Revised Statutetil of the United states, relating to the unorganized territory of Alaska, shaUremaln in full force, except as herein specially otherwise prOVided; and the importation, manufacture, and sale of intOXicating liquors in said district. enflptformediclnal. mechanical, and scientific purposes, Is hereby prohiblt!o'd.under the penalties which afe prOVided In section nineteen bundred and fifty-five of.tpe Revised Statutes for wrongfuUmportatlon of distilled spirits; and the president of the United States shall make such regUlations aeare D'eCl'SSaTy to carry out the provisions of this section." The provisions of chapter 3, tit. 23, Rev. St., referred to, on the subject of the sale of liquors, only provide that "the president shall haYti power to restrict and regulate or to prohibit the imp"1'tSltion and use of
UNITED STATES V. WARWICK..
firearms, ammunition, and distilled spirits into and within the territory of Alaska." It then provides the penalty for the violation of such regulations as the president shall make, which is a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment not to exceed six, fllonths. This statute did not directly attempt to restrict, regulate, or prohibittheimportation and use spirits into Alaska, but simply conferred upon the president of the power to do so. But the first direct legislation of congress upon the subject of the importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating liquors in this district is found in the act of March 3, 1873, which amended section 1 of the Alaska act of 1868, so as to extend over the country sections 20 and 21 of the intercourse act of 1834. Section 20 of this act, as amended by subsequent legislation, reads as follows: "No ardent spirits shall be introduced, under any pretense, into the Indian country. Every person who sells. exchanges, gives, barters, disposes of any spirituousliqilors or wine to any Indian under the charge ofany Indian superintendent or agent. or introduces or attempts to introduce any spirituous liquor or wine into the Indian country, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, and by a fine ot not more than three hundred dollars, ($300.) JJut it shall be a sufficient 'defense to any charge of introducing, or attempting to introduce, liquor into the Indian country, that the acts charged were done by order of, or under authority from, the war department, or any officer duly authorized thereto by the war department." " This law was in force here from the date of the passage of the act axtending it to Alaska until May 17, 1884, the date of the approval of the organic act, by which it was repealed by implication, at least as to the portions in conflict or subjects fully covered by the later law. " A statute is repealed by the enactment of another repugnant to it, or covering the whole subject of the former." U. S. v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254. But this point was passed upon by Judge DEADY in his very able decision in Ne1JJon v. U. S., 12 Sawy. 285, 30 Fed. Rep. 112, where he says: "No particular question was made on the 'argument as to the scope and effect of the act; but, as it covers the whole ground, the most reasonable conclusion is that it supersedes or repeals all former laws on the sUbject of intoxicating liquors in Alaska." As to the importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating liquor in this district, section 14, 8upra, in connection with section 1955 of the Revised Statutes, and the regulations of the president, must be accepted as the law; and, if such is the case, then if the defendant sold it to any person, as charged in the indictment, he has violated the law. It is immaterial whether the vendee is a white man or an Indian, or belongs to some other nationality, and the statement in this indictment that the parties named are Indian women may be regarded as descriptive, or, if not, then surplusage. The indictment in the case of NelsIJn v. U. S., llUpm, did not contain the name of the vendee, but it was held that "the name can only be required for the more convenient identification of the transaction. It is not a necessary ingredient of the offense, particularly where the prohibition to sell is general, irrespective of persons." If my ,views as stated are correct, then the indictIl,lent is good iu this case, and the motion is overruled.
OOlltMJUtO.....:.oa1:Gm.u. Pl<llti.Gi:., . . t1;J.l/ot· PrO pet;8on olllOmargartn,e In hta poslIElssiOllwith .ame; Cltshall oifet the same for sale, is. as to .;. "otiltiW 'paokages, aiJ,"lnWfference Witti illtel'fitate oommeroe,. and therefore UDCOJl,.
"buyer''inIU,t'8kamille its'contents, ill nottllucha breaking llftae package as 'Will de..
stroy its _ "
cif.Mi Qriglnal paokage of oleomargarine,So that a prospective.
" '. .
FetitioUiogbeencorivioted in a
of 1w.ben8. cmpU,8. couJ!t,of,the of sellaffirmed in the'statesupreme .. Writ' gtanted, and peti:ti0ner discharged.
-"f :/' ·..... ' . ' '
., BoNn, Circuit'J'udgEj;';' :!l'hepetitioner has been, arrested and in<Ii'cted by. <jlJ: the city of .Balth;n,ore, ,aQQ. is now in jail, his 'l'he indictmept is for a violation of art. 27 ,$§' inC1\lsive, relating to the 1 SAJIil, ()f Jtcontaius counts. The first charges that dili WQD:e Simon N. asan article of food, 10 ppumds of mllnllfactured. 0\1t of an substance. de"igpedto butter. 'Thesecoqd couD;t charges that petitioner ,offeredto sellt<> ,Simon :N. MUler 10 pounds of the manufac,third he, had in 'his, possession, with ,tei) sell certain manufactured, out of other than pure milk or cream. There1s little dispute about the facts material to the decision of this question, wbich,tllsQIMlijilitselH'Qtothis: Whether or nota, party living in the state.canoJ:dftrfrom apa,ckage ot oleomargarine, and sell ..itintbe original pll.Pkllgeto a citizen, of Baltimore. The proof shows .that there was but one.. sale by petitioner,.,.-thatopO pounds to Miller. The packl;\ge ,in. q:uestion· was manufactured in Chicago by Braun & Fitts. UthaQ all the internal revenue stamps apd brands on it to show .thattheapt 9!congressha,d by theu;l been complied with. There is ;Some dispute as to was actillg llS the agent of some ,one else to us this makes.but little, proof is that he received the package from Braun &;,Fitt/3.,of .and sold it to Mil" ler., that:Pope & Janney, dealers in but-
1jI:4.:,.rot. 9'7; 590, provi4es, r6!1pept to oleomargarine, tb.at no perSon" shall have the lIa'tillj 1n'bfs posBession with lIiteutto· sdllthe same. or Ihall sell or offer the _me for sllo1Q, · .
. , '