79.

Opinion of the Court.

fact does present an anomalous situation, not to be remedied, however, by judicial construction in derogation of positive and controlling legislation.

Moreover, by the agreed statement of facts it appears that a deputy clerk, who became ex officio recorder, was appointed June 30, 1906, and opened his office for the transaction of business at Duncan on July 7, 1906. The conveyance from Adams to Galloway was made on November 16, 1906. Had Whitehead filed his deed for record at Duncan after the recording office was opened there and prior to November 16, 1906, Galloway and the subsequent purchasers would have had constructive notice by means of this record of the prior conveyance. But all that Whitehead did was to file his deed at Ryan after the land had become part of the Duncan district. After the opening of the Duncan office, it was his duty, if he would charge others with constructive notice, to file his deed in the office at Duncan. Had he done this he would have had a conveyance of record which would have been constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Such constructive notice was not conveyed to Galloway and the subsequent purchasers by the filing of the deed for record at Ryan in the old district. It results that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma must be

Affirmed.

Argument for the United States.

249 U. S.

UNITED STATES v. DOREMUS.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 367. Submitted January 16, 1919.-Decided March 3, 1919. While Congress may not exert authority which is wholly reserved to the States, the power conferred by the Constitution to levy excise taxes, uniform throughout the United States, is to be exercised at the discretion of Congress; and, where the provisions of the law enacted have some reasonable relation to this power, the fact that they may have been impelled by a motive, or may accomplish a purpose, other than the raising of revenue, cannot invalidate them; nor can the fact that they affect the conduct of a business which is subject to regulation by the state police power. P. 93. The Narcotic Drug Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785, § 1, requires those who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute or give away opium or coca leaves, or their compounds, derivatives, etc., to register and pay a special tax. Section 2 makes sales, etc., of these drugs unlawful except to persons who give orders on forms issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which orders must be preserved for official inspection; forbids any person to obtain the drugs by means of such order forms for any purpose other than the use, sale or distribution thereof by him in the conduct of a lawful business therein, or the legitimate practice of his profession; but declares that it does not apply (a) to the dispensing or distributing of the drugs to patients by physicians registered under the act, in the course of professional practice only, provided the physicians keep certain records for official inspection, or (b) to sales, etc., by dealers upon prescriptions issued by registered physicians, provided the dealers preserve the prescriptions for like inspection. Held, that the provisions of § 2 have a reasonable relation to the enforcement of the tax provided by § 1 (which is clearly unobjectionable), and do not exceed the power of Congress. P. 94. 246 Fed. Rep. 958, reversed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Porter and Mr. W. C. Herron for the United States:

86.

Argument for the United States.

A reading of the indictment shows that the first two counts and each succeeding two counts must be read together in order to make out the offense intended to be charged.

Looking at § 2 of the act, in connection with the title and all the other provisions thereof, it is clear that the key to its meaning is in the distinction made between producers of, and dealers in, these drugs, on the one hand, and consumers of them on the other. The former must register and pay the special tax; the latter not. The incidence of the tax is placed upon the former by the title of the act, and by its first section, while the latter are not directly dealt with by the act at all. This distinction is believed to be fundamental. Assuming it to be the practical object in the mind of Congress, the natural end to be accomplished by the act in this connection would be to see that the drugs in question, in so far as the incidence of the tax upon them was concerned, came really and honestly into the hands of consumers, and did not, through the passport of a druggist or doctor, come into the hands of a dealer who would not register, would not pay the special tax, and whose dealings would not be supervised by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The facility with which they may be transferred, and the ease therefore with which the tax upon dealers may be evaded are evident, and therefore methods and means, which seem at first drastic, may nevertheless be properly deemed by Congress necessary to secure the assessment of all producers and dealers, while relieving genuine consumers.

Congress, consequently, provided for the producers and dealers in the provisions of §§ 1 and 2. It required the transferrer and the transferee both to register in the normal case, and to pay the tax, and to use official order forms in their dealings with each other, so as to secure that both should so register and pay the tax.

It recognized, however, consumers in paragraphs (a)

Argument for the United States.

249 U. S.

and (b) of § 2. It permitted the sale of the drugs to them either from a physician directly or from him indirectly through a prescription to a druggist. In order, however, to prevent frauds on the revenue by the obtaining of the drugs under the guise of bona fide consumers by persons who in truth intended to deal in them without registering and paying the special tax, it required that physicians dispensing the drugs directly should do so only to "patients" treated in the course of professional practice, and that druggists should dispense the drugs only on "prescriptions" issued by physicians, and that neither of them should procure the drugs on order forms for any purpose other than the distribution of them to bona fide consumers-that is, genuine patients of a physician. The act thus looked at hangs together. It is true, of course, that it also had the moral purpose of discouraging the use of the drugs except as a medicine, but its main purpose as a revenue measure was to see that dealers in the drugs do not escape the tax.

Counsel then instanced, as well-known examples of the use of the taxing power in connection with social or moral ends, the protective tariff system; the tax on foreign-built yachts, Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261; on dealers in liquors and lottery tickets, License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462; on notes of state banks, Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533; on importation of alien passengers, Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580; graduation of taxes, Magoun v. Bank, 170 U. S. 283; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41; Brushaber v. United States, 240 U. S. 1; on oleomargarine, In re Kollock, 165 U. S. 526; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; on sugar refiners, American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89. On the right to exempt certain classes of dealers, United States v. Calhoun, 39 Fed. Rep. 604; Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261. And see Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394.

The same presumption prevails in favor of the constitutionality of the means adopted by Congress to effectuate its exercise of the taxing power as prevails regarding the exercise of the power itself. Where Congress has acted clearly in the exercise of its taxing power, the means employed to effectuate this legitimate functioning are in their nature practical, belonging to the field of experiment and experience, and outside of the field of judicial knowledge. Hence, if it once be determined that the main provision of the act levying the tax and defining its incidence is constitutional, the means devised by Congress for the collection of the tax and the prevention of frauds in connection with it will, except in the most extraordinary case, be held to be within the proper scope of the legislative power. In re Kollock, supra; McCray v. United States, supra; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509; Felsenheld v. United States, 186 U. S. 126; United States v. 132 Packages, 76 Fed. Rep. 362; United States v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, supra. Counsel also cited Blunt v. United States, 255 Fed. Rep. 332; Baldwin v. United States, 238 Fed. Rep. 793; United States v. Rosenberg, 251 Fed. Rep. 963; Foreman v. United States, 255 Fed. Rep. 621; and Hughes v. United States, 253 Fed. Rep. 543, dealing with the act of Congress in question.

No appearance for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

Doremus was indicted for violating § 2 of the so-called Harrison Narcotic Drug Act. 38 Stat. 785; 6 U. S. Comp. Stats. 1916, § 6287g. Upon demurrer to the indictment the District Court held the section unconstitutional for the reason that it was not a revenue measure, and was an invasion of the police power reserved to the States. 246 Fed. Rep. 958. The case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act, 34 Stat. 1246.