Property, privacy, police power, and prohibition enforcement : the judicial response to the intoxicating liquor laws in Florida, 1885-1935

390 Pages·1993·14 MB·English

by  Guthrie, John J., 1955-

PROPERTY, PRIVACY, POLICE POWER, AND PROHIBITION
ENFORCEMENT: THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO THE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LAWS IN FLORIDA, 1885-1935
By
JOHN J. GUTHRIE, JR.
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1993
Copyright 1993
by
John J. Guthrie, Jr.
To my father
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The debt that I owe to the people in my personal and
professional life who have helped me complete this
dissertation is far greater than I can credit with words.
These individuals have enabledme to do a task that, at times,
seemed beyond my reach. To them I feel deeply obliged.
First, I want to extend my utmost appreciation to Kermit
L. Hall, who once said, "A mentor has to be demanding but
open, critical yet encouraging, and sensitive yet honest." He
has met these standards and more. He labored through rough
drafts of this dissertation, chapter by chapter, and made
generous comments and perceptive criticisms. By that, Dr.
Hall allowed me to see the real merit in my work. No student
could ask for more in a mentor.
I also must thank the other members of my supervisory
committee who have contributedto my academic growth. William
J. Frazer has encouraged and supported my work on this project
since its inception. C. John Sommerville deserves recognition
for guiding me through some important works in English history
that have deepened my understanding of Anglo-American
constitutionalism. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, through his
scholarship and through his sound advice, has influenced me in
more ways than he probably realizes. I owe George E. Pozzetta
iv
for broadening my "conceptualizations" shortly after I
embarked on my doctoral program at the University of Florida.
He also provided me a valuable learning experience as his
research assistant during the summer of 1988. Thanks, too, to
Julian M. Pleasants, who exemplifies the teacher-scholar. By
complementing insightful analysis with good humor, he is both
brilliant and captivating.
I want to acknowledge the efforts of several librarians
and archivists who eased my research. Fred Harden at the
Daytona Beach Community College Library obtained material
through inter-library loans, saving me time, effort, and
travel expense. Nancy Dobson, of the Florida Supreme Court
Historical Society, provided valuable information pertaining
to the state's high court. Mary Ann Hawkins of the Atlanta
Branch of the National Archives, deserves special praise for
tolerating my naivete about accessing archival records.
I want to thank Frank P. Jozsa, Jr., Pfeiffer College;
Theresa Delos Santos, Daytona Beach Community College; Paul
Finkelman, Brooklyn Law School; Sally A. Flocks, Georgia Legal
History Foundation; and Mark L. Edwards, Department of
Treasury. Each read a chapter and made suggestions that
significantly improved the text. Ron Edwards, Kathryn
Schoettler, and Allison Saville, however, each went the
proverbial "extra mile" and proof-read the entire manuscript.
Their sharp editorial eyes caught many errors that escaped
v
mine. Thanks to them, the final product shines when compared
to earlier drafts.
Several administrators ofDaytonaBeachCommunity College
warrant special mention. Deans Kathleen Noble, Verl Beebe,
and my immediate supervisors, KimBelden and Glen Murphy, have
not only encouraged their faculty to develop professionally
but also have helped make their college a wonderful place for
its faculty to teach.
I applaud my graduate school friends, Jack Henderson,
David Tegeder, Tim Huebner, and the Thompsons, Toni and Joe,
who shared with me the rigors and rewards of seminars,
qualifying exams, and doctoral dissertations. I appreciate
deeply both the camaraderie that they provided as well as the
occasional bed for me to sleep in.
Finally, because I married in 1990, my family has become
so extensive that space does not allow individual
acknowledgment. Therefore, I thank you all for tolerating my
neglect for so long. No one, however, has shown more patience
toward me than my wife Kak. I hope someday that she will take
the time and read what took me so long to write.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT ix
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTERS
1 THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AND THE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LAWS: FROM LOCAL OPTION
TONATIONALPROHIBITION, 1885-1920 36
Toward a Dry Commonwealth, 1883-1907 37
Florida Drys Attack the State's Drinking
Institutions, 1907-1915 49
Property Rights and Judicial Discord 61
A Southern View of National Prohibition 84
2 A CONCURRENCE OF POWER AND PROTECTION AGAINST
DOUBLE JEOPARDY 86
Federal District Courts, Interstate
Commerce Law, and Intoxicating Liquors,
1905-1913 92
The Florida Supreme Court, Interstate Commerce
Law, and Intoxicating Liquors, 1908-1915 103
The Judicial Consensus on Concurrent Power,
1917-1921 108
Judicial Discord: Concurrent Enforcement and
the Problem of Double Jeopardy, 1921-1922 128
ThePersistence of Tradition 135
3 PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT AND FOURTH AMENDMENT
PRIVACY RIGHTS: WHEN A HOUSE IS A CASTLE 140
The Florida Supreme Court Responds to Search
and Seizure 144
TheDistrict Courts Respond 151
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit Responds 156
When a House Is a Castle 169
Vll
4 PRIVACY RIGHTS BEYOND AND IN THE HOME,
1923-1930 174
The Right to Privacy on a Ship 174
The Right to Privacy in an Automobile 177
The Right to Privacy in a Business Enterprise...181
When a House Is Not a Castle: Homicides and
the Right to Privacy, 1928-1930 191
"Every Man's House Is His Castle" Reaffirmed....207
New LawConfronts Old Jurisprudence 209
5 STAVING OFF LEGISLATIVE ASSAULTS ON PROPERTY
RIGHTS: THE JUDICIAL CHECK ON FORFEITURE LAW....214
The Florida Supreme Court and Property
Forfeiture 220
The Federal District Courts and Forfeiture 238
AHouse ofMirrors 265
6 THE REPEAL MOVEMENT IN FLORIDA: FROM NATIONAL
PROHIBITION TO LOCAL OPTION, 1928-1933 268
Judicial Backlog Stemming from Prohibition
Enforcement 269
The Presidential Election of 1928 271
Wet Gains 273
Report of the WickershamCommission 277
The Great Depression Impacts an Unpopular Law...282
Voluntary Committee of Lawyers Advocate Repeal..285
The Prohibition Bureau's Selective Enforcement..288
Turning Back Prohibition in Florida 295
Persistent Federal Enforcement 305
ChangingoftheGuard 309
7 THEAFTERMATHOFPROHIBITION 312
Reassessingthe Police Power 313
ATenuous Legacy 323
CONCLUSION 329
BIBLIOGRAPHY 342
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 378
viii
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to
the Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
PROPERTY, PRIVACY, POLICE POWER, AND PROHIBITION
ENFORCEMENT: THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO THE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LAWS IN FLORIDA, 1885-1935
By
JOHN J. GUTHRIE, JR.
MAY, 1993
Chairman: Kermit L. Hall
Major Department: History
This dissertation deals with the judicial response to
state and federal intoxicating liquor laws in Florida from
1885-1935. It employs liberalism, republicanism, and the
common law as analytical categories to illuminate an
underlying theme of conflict that has characterized the
American constitutional experience. The crux of this discord
has turned on the inevitable tension that exists between
individual rights and governmental authority. Moreover, the
implementation of Florida's liquor laws coupled with National
Prohibition raised the existing tension to a higher level.
That is, these laws restricted individual property rights in
alcoholic beverages while expanding the police power of the
state. Enforcing the liquor laws thus set in motion a host of
IX
constitutional problems. Small wonder, then, that the burden
of reconciling these matters fell to the courts.
Court records underscore the significant role that judges
played in mediating the strife between liberty and power.
Torn between republican notions that the commonweal stood
paramount to individual interest, and liberal ideals that life
liberty and property remain beyond the grasp of governmental
authority, judges relied on common law jurisprudence to strike
a balance. By that, the judicial rulings in Florida liquor
cases neither reflected vacillating public opinion nor issued
from "some external stimuli." Instead, these judges acted
independently. In doing so, they grounded their opinions on
the cornerstones of traditional American justice: precedent
and citation of authority.
x