You are on page 1of 10
 
255 U.S. 8141 S.Ct. 29865 L.Ed. 516
UNITED STATESv.L. COHEN GROCERY CO.
 No. 324. Argued Oct. 18, 19 and 20, 1920. Decided Feb. 28, 1921. Mr. Solicitor General Frierson,
 for the United States.[Argument of Counsel from pages 82-85 intentionally omitted]
 Mr. Chester H. Krum,
 of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.1Required on this direct appeal to decide whether Congress under theConstitution had authority to adopt section 4 of the Lever Act as re-enacted in1919, we reproduce the section so far as relevant (Act Oct. 22, 1919, tit. 1, c.80, § 2, 41 Stat. 297):2'That it is hereby made unlawful for any person willfully * * * to make anyunjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling or dealing in or with anynecessaries; to conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person * * *(e) to exact excessive prices for any necessaries. * * * Any person violating anyof the provisions of this section upon conviction thereof shall be fined notexceeding $5,000 or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. * * *'3The text thus reproduced is followed by two provisos exempting from theoperation either of the section or of the act enumerated persons or classes of  persons engaged in agricultural or similar pursuits.4Comparing the re-enacted section with the original text (Act Aug. 10, 1917, c.53, § 4, 40 Stat. 276 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/8
 
ff]), it will be seen that the only changes made by the re-enactment were theinsertion of the penalty clause and an enlargement of the enumeratedexemptions.5In each of two counts the defendant, the Cohen Grocery Company, alleged to be a dealer in sugar and other necessaries in the city of St. Louis, was chargedwith violating this section by willfully and feloniously making an unjust andunreasonable rate and charge in handling and dealing in a certain necessary; thespecification in the first count being a sale for $10.07 of about 50 pounds of sugar, and that in the second, of a 100-pound bag of sugar for $19.50.6The defendant demurred on the following grounds: (a) That both counts wereso vague as not to inform it of the nature and cause of the accusation; (b) thatthe statute upon which the indictment was based was subject to the sameinfirmity because it was so indefinite as not to enable it to be known what wasforbidden, and therefore amounted to a delegation by Congress of legislative power to courts and juries to determine what acts should be held to be criminaland punishable; and (c) that as the country was virtually at peace Congress hadno power to regulate the subject with which the section dealt. In passing on thedemurrer the court, declaring that this court had settled that until the officialdeclaration of peace there was a status of war, nevertheless decided that suchconclusion was wholly negligible as to the other issues raised by the demurrer,since it was equally well settled by this court that the mere status of war did notof its own force suspend or limit the effect of the Constitution, but only causedlimitations which the Constitution made applicable as the necessary andappropriate result of the status of war, to become operative. Holding that thislatter result was not the case as to the particular provisions of the Fifth andSixth Amendments which it had under consideration; that is, as to the prohibitions which those amendments imposed upon Congress againstdelegating legislative power to courts and juries, against penalizing indefiniteacts, and against depriving the citizen of the right to be informed of the natureand cause of the accusation against him, the court, giving effect to theamendments in question, came to consider the grounds of demurrer relating tothose subjects. In doing so and referring to an opinion previously expressed byit in charging a jury, the court said:7'Congress alone has power to define crimes against the United States. This power cannot be delegated either to the courts or to the juries of this country. ** *8'Therefore, because the law is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and because itfixes no immutable standard of guilt, but leaves such standard to the variant
 
views of the different courts and juries which may be called on to enforce it,and because it does not inform defendant of the nature and cause of theaccusation against him, I think it is constitutionally invalid, and that thedemurrer offered by the defendant ought to be sustained.'9The indictment was therefore quashed.10In cases submitted at about the same time with the one before us, and involvingidentical questions with those here in issue, it is contended that the section doesnot embrace the matters charged. We come, therefore, on our own motion inthis case to dispose of that subject, since, if well founded, the contention wouldrender a consideration of the constitutional questions unnecessary. The basisupon which the contention rests is that the words of the section do not embracethe price at which a commodity is sold, and, at any rate, the receipt of such price is not thereby intended to be penalized. We are of opinion, however, thatthese propositions are without merit, first, because the words of the section, asre-enacted, are broad enough to embrace the price for which a commodity issold; and, second, because as the amended section plainly imposes a penalty for the acts which it includes when committed after its passage, the fact that thesection before its re-enactment contained no penalty is of no moment. Thismust be the case unless it can be said that the failure at one time to impose a penalty for a forbidden act furnishes an adequate ground for preventing thesubsequent enforcement of a penalty which is specifically and unmistakably provided.11We are of opinion that the court below was clearly right in ruling that thedecisions of this court indisputably establish that the mere existence of a stateof war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of Congressof the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as toquestions such as we are here passing upon. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127, 18 L. Ed. 281; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S.312, 336, 13 Sup. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463; United States v. Joint TrafficAssociation, 171 U. S. 505, 571, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259; McCray v.United States, 195 U. S. 27, 61, 24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561;United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 326;
1
 Hamilton v. Kentucky DistilleriesCompany, 251 U. S. 146, 156, 40 Sup. Ct. 106, 64 L. Ed. 194. It follows that intesting the operation of the Constitution upon the subject here involved thequestion of the existence or nonexistence of a state of war becomes negligible,and we put it out of view.12The sole remaining inquiry, therefore, is the certainty or uncertainty of the textin question, that is, whether the words 'that it is hereby made unlawful for any

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505