National Republican., 1881-11-07

s shat aelivered inc opinion lpnge I6l; lie says "
fine crime and ordaln It's punishment.
1T would be dangerous indeed 10 carry
son or mischief Of the statute Is within It's PROF.
visions so far as punlshing acrimc not enumerated
kindred character with those which nrc enumers'
Ricd."
WITHOUT wEARYiSG Your HONOR
with any further citations Of authority upon that
point believe that Il will be conceded that Youre
Honor must look to this statute to determine what
acts, not what general principles are laid down;
to see what particular individual acts forbid
den, aud the crime 6 constituted Of acts which
are by statute indivldualizcd and distinguished
from all other acts. The policy OF the law Of the
United States Is not to punish crimes In gross or 20
define crimes IN groups ald classes as tney might
law, when the Court finds an act which
In It's opinion comes within the group
and punished 1t; but the court must say that tho
statue creates tho crimc--it being n legis.
latvo act TO make anything criminal-9nd
ter Of statute, but viii look to Il 10 see what acts,
not what general principles, but what acts, de-
lined to be criminal Now, 4 you take this
principle there is not any difficulty in defining
and comprchcnding what means. IL is admit
ted that the second subdivision Is uncertaln-too
uncertain to bc administered In and of itself and
therefore we say that hosreercncc 10 other STAT
ute certain, which have defined frauds, and, hay-
ing defined them made them punishable, II
consummatcd. This statute makes the at
and IL does not extend In It's effect beyond at.
tempt to perpctratc crimes, which, by the statute,
II potpCtratod, are made punishable by statute.
Now, 1t cannot be said that because this court has
double Jurisdiction
IrHAsA coMMoN-LAw JURISDICTION
and also Federal jurisdictions that for that reason
there is no difficulty whatever that II eau resort to
the common law TO help out statutory crime.
There are no crimes nor can be any crimes, against
the Government OF the United States which are not
defined by the statutes of the United States, no
matter though the court which has authority to
impose criminal punishment for violation OF
statutes of the United States also has authority to
administer the common law in some other re-
spects. Yet that fact does not change this statu-
tory Jurisdiction docs II affect the intcrprcta-
tou of the statute II could not be contendcd sue
cesslully, IL seems TO me, that Your Honor would
visit one Interpretation upon this statute in tho
District Of Columbia, aud the United states
court, sitting In the New York Jurisdiction should
place another interpretation upon IT, The statuto
means the same throughout the entire Jurisdiction
of the United States. IL means the same in this
court, no more aud no less than 1t means in any
Other United States court. Mr. Bishop says.
| (BishOp on Criminal Law, LIST vol, sec. 1895
Contrary therefore, to Du Ponccau, we answer tho
first question N the negatives and thus conclude thas
IN ne bread sense O. lhe proposition, exist within tho
Gli criminSilaw jurisdiction. whether they RSvS
such jurisdiction is the next question onr judiciary
Courts togcthcr-w need not inquire how divided be.
tween them exclusive cognlance ofa crimes against
| the United states, committed either land son:
and II is difficult 10 doubt that these words are broad
are but whether the answer to Tie rst or second Or
both of the above questions s in the negative the cons
which have at last reached tho result by path o
Ume mSs Wos cannot S Sns aense sS ~
the General Government until specified and defined
by an act OF Congress.
| Now what Is that7 Certainly there can be no
| Interpretation sought of statute afer II Is de-
fined. After thing Is defined there is no interprt!
tation further to be borrowed to aid one In ACCOM-
| plishing what Is already accomplished. II tho
crime must be defined by statute II Is clearly de-
fined II did not reserve the necessity of going TO
definition is complete OF itself and fully defined.
| This authority says that the United states cam
not punish oilenscs against the General Govemment
until specified aud defined by act of Congress-"
| Now upon this statute, rs TO the correctness OF
these comments of Mr.. Wharton, 1t seems 70 me
settled that the United States courts have no COM
mon law jurisdiction; tho statute (5iiOl must bo
limited to conspiracy TO do acts forbidden by
statutes Hence, n conspiracy to defraud cannot
be prosecuted under this statute unless the fraud
SS for nS PS m 'ny doubt
m condition of mind by this author. II stated
| with cXplicitness, with certainty with assurance
THAT THIS IS THE TRUE INTERPRETATION
of this statute. No authorities are cited for or
against the proposition, but II is ASSUMED that II s
the natural and the only Interpretation Of that
statute that It does not contemplate any fraud
that is not designated somewhere in the laws Of
the United States as criminal fraud. Not
Sny So but so amS made sSSpSraGy pHTiShSS pun, e.
true true What EVI IS there " in this cascq Are these
acts in this Information, any Of them, made pun
|
II It is said that Brady and those associated with
him abused their discretion, Is there any statute
Of nH geSa There snT eeay not TO
said they appropriated for these contracts larger
sums of money than they were authorized under
the faith full administration of the law to appro-
pirate, Is that misappropriation made penal Ger
tainy not. Are the means which they used, or al.
legged 10 have used, IN accomplishing thlssupposed
fraud made penal, either one or all of them2 Ccr-
tainly not Then here are q group OF acts, distin-
&, gusliod aud
MENTIONED IN THIS INFORMATION As IMPROPER
neither one OF which, standing alone, is mado
penal by tho statutes ofihe United States, nor all
mitted that there is nowhere within the statutes OF
the United States law which denounces pen-
atty against the acts specified In this information.
And Colonel Bliss arguing on this view saya
you can help out this statute by going TO the COM
mon lawto discover what acts at common law
are frauds, and come here and interpret the terms
"to deiraud," and when you have discovered those
acts which under the common law would re-
spond to your definition. that you may look back
again into this information and say whether these
acts dclincated here hold kindred In mischief,
not In the letter, for there is no mention In tho
letter, but do the acts mentioned in this informa-
tion, hold some remote kindred to acts which at
common law would be held TO accomplish tho
| fraud If 50, yOutcnn come and administer this
statute as a criminal statute. Now, il Your Honor
please, we say that that Is not So and we say fur-
pn Gr ua sHnni ~ n pe p oS thin s saue Now ID Ss
been discussed so amply that 1t Is not proper to
! weary Your Honor
IN GOING OVER IT AGAIN;
|
don't follow that all acts that come within those
general terms the acts mentioned and in
tended by the statute For instance, II Is held in
. the ID OF Otto: where Il statute dcnOunccs all
cheats and false pretenses II Is distinctly decided
; by tho Supreme Court there, that that does not
, mean all cheats and all false prctenses but it
means such cheats nnd such false preenses us wero
defined to be criminal cheats, and criminal pre-,
lenses. Now. suppose this statute has unrcslrained
meaning What frauds does II embrncc2 II en-
braces criminal frauds frauds that would subject
frauds that would subject n person to liability
, in u court of equity, and IL embraces frauds
that are TOO small for the law 70 notice In any OF
tnCt frauds, that no court of law Will take cogni-
znce Of because they are too trnng, aud the court
will not encumber It's records with them; but thi.
> statute, II II means what the gentleman says II
, means, covers all frauds
OF THE SLIGHTEST AND vAGUEsr CHARACTER;
common law or civil frauds, criminal frauds equi-
table frauds frauds too smull to notice, and frauds
Q which work no damage, whatever Now, we say
were administering court OF civil law you would
nppy 70 IL the illustrating maNiIns Ofthe civil law.
IT, for instance, the fraud worked no damage, what
e we'll known maXms of the civil law would apply,
that the statute is held In subjectlOn by such
inns and that such frauds are not inoludedi iii
bointroduccd into the family ofcriminal statutes "a
! what subeCtiou Is It held thcre2 Why, there ara
rules that control the criminal Jurisdiction in all
: It's departments, and all laws which are admins'
J tered in the criminal courts must be strictly con-
strued. That rule Is n criminal maxim, but not q
y | civil, and when you place the statute within Tho
A criminal jurisdiction of the court yOu place thai
= statute there subject TO the influences ana restraint
!, | of that maxim OF the criminal law If you make
y | statute general In Its terms, by which an act Ii
. DENOUNCED AND MADE PENAL
/. although Il says nothing about the intent of tho
d person committing tho act, yet 1t being u maxim
| of the criminal law that no person would commit
N | n crime without n criminal intent you would hold
II tho criminal maxim which requires the pres