Search Details

Word: bill (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1920-1929
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...March 2, 1929 President Coolidge signed the Jones-Stalker Bill which authorized the imposition of a maximum penalty of $10,000 fine or five years imprisonment or both for violations of the National Prohibition Law. The purpose according to Senator Jones, was to combat large scale "bootlegging" operations. By a special provision "the courts are to discriminate between casual or slight violations and so called regular bootlegging or attempts to commercialize violations of law". This latter provision has no legal effect since it is but a pious exhortation to the judges to be nice to the amateur offender...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: JONES-STALKER BILL DISCUSSED BY BURNS | 3/23/1929 | See Source »

...most important result of this Jones Bill is that violations of the Prohibition law are now felonies and not misdemeanors. At Common law the division of crimes into Treason, Felonies and Misdemeanors was in a rough way a fairly sensible division. Felonies were grave crimes all named and defined that seriously threatened the social security and all felons were subject to the death penalty. Misdemeanors were crimes of a less serious nature and included all crimes not felonies or treason. But under the Federal law a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor according to the penalty attached there...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: JONES-STALKER BILL DISCUSSED BY BURNS | 3/23/1929 | See Source »

Although no official statement on the subject of President Lowell's address could be obtained, it is expected that he will make his first personal reply to charges of E. H. Bill that the House Plan was "rail-roaded" through the faculty, and also will discuss other aspects of the House Plan, on which he has as yet made no statement...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: PRESIDENT LOWELL IS TO SPEAK AT HARVARD CLUB | 3/19/1929 | See Source »

Even Senator Edmunds seems to have changed his mind, for on Dec. 24, 1884, while President pro tem. of the Senate, he wrote to President Arthur: "A bill has passed both Houses of Congress and was presented for my signature after both Houses had adjourned until 5th of January. This is more than ten days, and, if it were now presented to you, you could not return it with your objections... It would seem to me as if the bill could not become a law constitutionally...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: Fairman Discusses Veto Case Now Before the Supreme Court | 3/18/1929 | See Source »

Finally, the Supreme Court has already, in an obiter dictum, given an interpretation of the clause in question. (175 U.S. 423 at 454). "If by its action, after the presentation of a bill to the President during the time given him by the Constitution for an examination of its provisions and for approving it by his signature, Congress puts it out of his power to return it, not approved, within that time to the House in which it originated, then the bill fails, and does not become...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: Fairman Discusses Veto Case Now Before the Supreme Court | 3/18/1929 | See Source »

Previous | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | Next