## Facts

- Effie Hoke was indicted under the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act) for knowingly persuading, inducing, and enticing Annette Baden (alias Annette Hays) to travel from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Beaumont, Texas, in interstate commerce for prostitution.
- Basile Economides was indicted for aiding and assisting Hoke in persuading, inducing, and enticing Baden to travel interstate for prostitution, intending she engage in prostitution in Beaumont.
- Additional counts involved similar allegations concerning another woman; one count involved a woman under eighteen.
- Defendants challenged the statute’s constitutionality by demurrer, asserting Congress lacked Commerce Clause authority and that the Act invaded state powers and abridged privileges or immunities; the trial court overruled the demurrers.
- After trial in federal district court, both defendants were convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each count.
- Defendants sought Supreme Court review, also alleging evidentiary, instruction, and variance errors.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, prohibit interstate transportation of women when the purpose is prostitution or other immoral purposes.
2. Whether the Mann Act unlawfully invades powers reserved to the states to regulate local morality and prostitution.
3. Whether the Act abridges citizens’ privileges or immunities by restricting interstate travel.
4. Whether alleged variances, evidentiary rulings (including acts after arrival), and jury instructions required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and upheld the Mann Act as constitutional.
- Congress’s power over interstate commerce includes regulation of the transportation of persons and permits prohibiting the use of interstate transportation to facilitate prostitution or other immoral purposes.
- The Act was treated as regulating the channels of interstate commerce, not regulating prostitution as a purely intrastate matter.
- The statute did not abridge privileges or immunities of citizens by targeting wrongful use of interstate transportation rather than lawful travel.
- Claimed trial errors—including a merely verbal variance and admission of post-arrival conduct to show intent in inducing transportation—did not warrant reversal; the sufficiency of the evidence was for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate and prohibit interstate transportation of persons when the transportation is intended to facilitate prostitution or other immoral purposes.
- The Commerce Clause permits prohibitory regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to prevent their use as a means to commit wrong.
- Federal commerce regulation may employ measures resembling police regulations when directed to matters within interstate commerce authority.
- Congress may not regulate prostitution as such within a state, but may regulate interstate travel undertaken for that end.
- A Mann Act violation may be committed through the acts of a third party; personal accompaniment is not required.
- Evidence of conduct after interstate arrival may be admissible when it tends to prove the purpose and inducement behind the interstate transportation.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained federal authority to bar the interstate transportation of women for prostitution or other immoral purposes, holding that such regulation protects the channels of interstate commerce without displacing state control over prostitution as a local activity.


Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913)