Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-03-06
AN ADVERSE OPINION
Court Of Appeals Decides
Against FL. Kieckhoefer.
G AUSE RENAMED
APPELLEE ACCUSED OF EMBEZ-
FLING GOVERNMENT FUNDS.
Statement Of Details Of Three Separate
Cases and the Conclusions
Thereon
CAUSE REMANDED

the accused anu remaining the case TO the
District OF Columbia Supreme Court Tor
further proceedings was handed down yes
terday by the District Of Columbia Court
OF Appeals In the case of Francis ]. Kieck-
hoefer. former disbursing officer OF the
State Department By the judgment OF
the Court OF Appeals the motions to quash
the several indictments against Mr.. Kieck-
hoefer. wherein he is charged with hay-
ing embezzled about $4,000. are overru1ed.
and the cause is returned to the lower court
for further proceedings therein according
to law" The opinion is by Mr.. Justice
Morris.
A statement OF the details of he three
several actions against Mr.. Kieckhoefer
precedes the announcement of the decision
and the argument whereon 1t is based. It
Is set forth: That the three actions inyolve
substantially the same issues; that they
are brought under certain United States
STATUTES which are specified and given In
part; that the appellant fK1eckhoefer) was
an employe OF the State Department as
disbursing clerk and chief OF the bureau
OF accounts, and as such 10 charged In the
indictments under consideration with hav-
ing embezzled July 2. 1895, the sum OF 3d.
9.9S: October q, 1885. SIG. S37. so, and Oc-
tober 20, 1895. $5,54S-92; that these sums
are alleged to have been public money
belonging to the United States; that three
hoefer. which comprised all told twenty
three counts.
Demurrer Overruled.
To each Indictment ana to each count
says the OF. the appellant tnterposed
a demurrer. VIII was overruled. He then
obtained bills of particulars in each case,
In each Of which bills ut appeared that
the several entertainments alleged were
Of funds in the custody OF the State De-
partment from moneys paid to the United
States on various accounts by foreign gov
ernments and collected through the said
Department Of State" Thereupon there
was filed. in each case, on behalf OF the
accused a motion to Quash the indictment
on the ground Of its Indebtedness and in
sufaciency, and because, as claimed, the
bill of particulars stated different Of
tense from that set up in the Indictment.
And there was also filed at the same time.
on behalf OF the accused, motion to
strike out the bill of particulars and to
require the United States to give the &C
cnsed a better bill Of particulars. Both
motions were overruled: and 1t Is from the
orders overruling them that these special
appeals were sought and allowed.
The opinion continues. as follows:
1.-The principal question indeed, we may
say the only substantial question-that Is
presented for our consideration Is whether
money In the charge and within the con-
troll Of the State Department. paid to the
United States on various accounts by for
through the State Department, commonly
known the indemnity fund is public
money Of the United States in the sense
Of the statutes upon which the indictments
against the appellant are founded, so
that the unlawful appropriation of them Is
punishable as embezzlement under these
| statutes. And 1t is to the elucidation Of
this question that the argument on both
sides has been mainly directed" The
finding Of the court is that the funds in
Dictated are public money and that there
fore, the indictments are sufficiently ex-
plicit.
The Indemnity Fund.
An argument follows to establish that sit
could not we'll be controverted that, in the
general sense, this indemnity fund is pub
| lie money Of the United States" After sew
eral citations from earlier opinions on the
| same subject and an argument that the
United States could hardly acquire or hold
any money or property whatever. except as
public money or public property" The. court
holds:
Beyond any reasonable question, there
/ fore, this indemnity fund under the control
OF the Department Of State and its disburs-
| ing officers is public money Of the United
States under the control Of the Department
4 Of State and its disbursing officers Is public
/ money Of the United States under the let
ter Of the statutes on which the Indictments
before US are founded. Is 1t not equally
public money OF the United States within
1 Tie SpIiI duV pulpUSe VI lueSe e1ldCllu6ulS I
| The answer to this question can scarcely
| be doubtful, and 1t would seem to be wholly
/ unnecessary to expend argument upon 1t or
/ to seek through adjudicated cases for
authority to support the proposition that it
| is both the right and duty OF the United
/ States to protect equally all public money
| in It's charge or writ within its control from
embezzlement and unlawful depreda ton.
| whether such money be held in trust or
| otherwise: And when the United States
/ have sought to extend such protection over
| all its public money by statutes against
| embezzlement, which contain no exception,
! but which on the contrary by their very
general terms embrace the special fund in
| question here, 1t would be most extraordi-
| nary, we think, to seek to read an excep-
| ton into the law for which there Is no war
| rant in reason, in morals or in conscience.
Letter and Spirit.
Undoubtedly. therefore, embezzlement of
the indemnity fund of the State Depart
ment is embezzlement both under the letter
and under the spirit Of these statutes.
Wherein. then, are the indictments liable to
| objection? Upon what ground can 1t be
assumed that embezzlement OF the indem-
| nifty fund Is lawful, or at least covered by
| no statute, when embezzlement OF other
| public money Is punishable by statute? The
argument is that, because other statutes
| make provisions In regard to the public
| moneys applied to the indemnity money
and this indemnity fund has not been treat
| ed as these statutes reqaifeahe othSf PUBIC
moneys to be treated. therefore these stat
utes for the punishment Of embezzlement
| should not be held to apply to the In
demnity fund. For this is the gist of the
argument when reduced to it's simplest
terms; and the very statement Of the prop
osition, in our opinion. would seem to show
its fallacy." The court then proceeds to
examine the argument epitomized In the
| above terms and dispose Of 1t adversely
point by point.
Regarded as Public Money.
In conclusion the opinion reads:
From what we have said 1t follows, in
| our opinion. that for the purposes Of the
| present proceedings the socalled indemnity
| fund in the possession and within the con-
| troll Of the Department Of State and in
| trusted by that department to the Gus
| tody Of its disbursing clerkand chief Of It's
| bureau Of accounts. and with the embez-
element OF which the appellant Is charged.
| is public money of the United States with
/ In The letter and the spirit and within the
meaning and intent OF section 5486 Of the
Revised Statutes, the act OF Congress of
March 3. 1876, and the act Of Congress
of February 8, 1879, which denounce as
criminal the unlawful appropriation Of pub
lie money Of the United States by disbursing