Opinion of the Court.

347 U.S.

bank to engage in a business but gave no right to let the public know about it.

Appellee does not object to national banks taking savings deposits or even to their advertising that fact so long as they do not use the word "savings." It takes the position that this word is a misnomer in New York because depositors there, as a result of the state statute, have come to think of savings accounts as something entirely different from those to which the Federal Act is referring. Regardless of whether New Yorkers are really misled by the description, the fact is that Congress has given a particular label to this type of account. Whatever peculiar meaning the word may have in New York, it is a word which aptly describes, in a national sense, the type of business carried on by these national banks. They do accept and pay interest on time deposits of people's savings, and they must be deemed to have the right to advertise that fact by using the commonly understood description which Congress has specifically selected. We find no indication that Congress intended to make this phase of national banking subject to local restrictions, as it has done by express language in several other instances."

There appears to be a clear conflict between the law of New York and the law of the Federal Government. We cannot resolve conflicts of authority by our judgment as to the wisdom or need of either conflicting policy. The

7

E. g., R. S. § 5155, 12 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 36 (c) (establishment of branch banks); R. S. § 5136, 12 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 24 (eighth) (contributions to charitable instrumentalities); R. S. § 5153, 12 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 90 (security for the deposit of state funds); R. S. § 5197, 12 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 85, and part of the section involved in this case, 38 Stat. 273, 44 Stat. 1232, as amended, 12 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 371 (interest rates). Even in the absence of such express language, national banks may be subject to some state laws in the normal course of business if there is no conflict with federal law. Cf. Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233; McClellan v. Chipman, 164 U. S. 347.

8

compact between the states creating the Federal Government resolves them as a matter of supremacy. However wise or needful New York's policy, a matter as to which we express no judgment, it must give way to the contrary federal policy.

The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE REED, dissenting.

I dissent. It should be noted that the New York statute, note 1 of the Court's opinion, limits the use of the words "saving" or "savings" in relation to their banking business to certain types of New York financial institutions. These are those that are mutual in character as distinguished from stockholder-owned. Such mutual institutions can and do pay larger returns on deposits in New York than the commercial stock-type banks, state or national, both of which are barred by the New York statute from using the word "savings" "in relation to banking or financial business." The mutual banks have been successful in attracting a large proportion of savings deposits for over a century. They have a remarkable record for soundness in finance and profitable operation for the benefit of the depositors. The purpose of the New York law is to reserve the use of the word "savings" to identify the mutual type of bank operation for the public, just as the federal banking laws reserve the name "national" for a certain type of bank organized under federal law.

The Court's opinion permits the national banks to trade upon the good name of the savings banks to secure de

Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 229-230; Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 283.

posits of that type. Now they may advertise "A Savings Bank" under their corporate name; their deposit slips may say "Savings Account." As no federal statute expressly authorizes the national banks to use the words "saving" or "savings" in their advertisements, I think they must conform to the New York law for the protection of the public from misunderstanding. I would not imply a federal privilege to use "savings" in advertising from the fact that national banks may accept savings deposits. The cases cited by the Court in note 7 sustain that view. I know of no precedents that approve such a limitation on state power as the Court now announces.

Opinion of the Court.

UNITED STATES v. DIXON.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

No. 500. Argued March 12, 1954. Decided April 5, 1954.

Section 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code makes it "unlawful" to possess any property intended for use in violating the provisions of "this part" or the internal revenue laws and provides for the seizure and forfeiture of such property. Section 3115 of the same "part" makes punishable by fine or imprisonment or both a violation of "any of the provisions of this part" for which no "special penalty" is provided. Held: Read together, §§ 3115 and 3116 make it a criminal offense to possess property intended for use in producing liquor without the payment of taxes thereon in violation of the Code. Pp. 381-386.

(a) A different result is not required by the facts that § 3115 is applicable only where no "special penalty" is provided for the offense and § 3116 provides for the seizure and forfeiture of such property. P. 385.

(b) Nor is a different result required by the fact that § 3116 is captioned "Forfeitures and seizures." Pp. 385-386. Reversed.

Philip Elman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Robert L. Stern, then Acting Solicitor General, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop.

No appearance for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question here is whether §§ 3116 and 3115 of the Internal Revenue Code make it a criminal offense to possess property intended for use in producing nontaxpaid distilled spirits in violation of the Code. Appellee

Opinion of the Court.

347 U.S.

was indicted under these sections for wilfully and knowingly possessing 800 pounds of sugar and parts of a still for the proscribed purpose. On motion the District Court, relying on dictum in a court of appeals decision,1 dismissed the indictment on the ground that § 3116 is "preventative and remedial rather than criminal, and that it does not define a criminal offense." The Government appealed directly to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. 346 U. S. 930.

Section 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code is captioned "Forfeitures and seizures," and provides in pertinent part: "It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property intended for use in violating the provisions of this part, or the internal-revenue laws . . . and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property. . . . Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal-revenue laws, or of any other law. . . . The section also provides for search warrants and for procedure in seizure and forfeiture. Section 3115 bears the caption "Penalties" and provides that anyone violating any of the provisions of "this part" for which offense a special penalty is not prescribed "shall be liable, for the first offense, to a penalty of not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both. . . .” . . . ." The

1 Kent v. United States, 157 F. 2d 1 (1946). See also United States v. Windle, 158 F. 2d 196 (1946). In those cases the Government had invoked only the forfeiture provisions of the section; as applied to such a civil proceeding, characterization of the section as preventative and remedial was obviously accurate. The two reported cases which previously have faced squarely the present question have upheld the indictments. United States v. Blair, 97 F. Supp. 718 (1951); United States v. Harvin, 91 F. Supp. 249 (1950). See also Godette v. United States, 199 F. 2d 331 (1952), in which the present issue apparently was not raised.