Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/202/344.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:03:15+00:00

Document:
[202 U.S. 344, 345] Messrs. John F. Dillon, B. P. Waggener, F. W. Lehmann, Harry Hubbard, W. H. Rossington, W. K. Haynes, and W. P. Hackney for plaintiff in error.
[202 U.S. 344, 355] Assistant Attorney General Robb for defendant in error.
'Sec. 4041. The Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any person or company is conducting any other scheme for obtaining money or property of any kind through the mails by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, forbid the payment by any postmaster to said person or company of any postal money orders drawn to his or its order or in his or its favor, or to the agent of any such person or company, whether such agent is acting as an individual or as a firm, bank, corporation, or association of any kind, and may provide by regulation for the return to the remitters of the sums named in such money orders. . . .' 26 Stat. at L. 466, chap. 908, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2749.
'Sec. 1782 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1212). No Senator, Representative, or Delegate, after his election and during his continuance in office, and no head of a department, or other officer or clerk in the employ of the government, shall receive or agree to receive any compensation whatever, directly or indirectly, for any services rendered, or to be rendered, to any person, either by himself or another, in relation to any proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter or thing in which the United States is a party, or directly or indirectly interested, before any department, court-martial, bureau, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission whatever. Every person offending against this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- [202 U.S. 344, 360] demeanor, and shall be imprisoned not more than two years, and fined not more than ten thousand dollars, and shall, moreover, by conviction therefor, be rendered forever thereafter incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the government of the United States.' 13 Stat. at L. 123, chap. 119.
The plaintiff in error was indicted in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri for a violation of 1782, the offense being alleged to have been committed at St. Louis. The accused was found guilty, and, on writ of error, the judgment was reversed by this court, and a new trial ordered, upon the ground, among others, that, according to the facts disclosed in that case, the offense charged was not committed in the state of Missouri, where the accused was tried. 196 U.S. 283 , 49 L. ed. 482, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243.
Subsequently, the defendant was tried under a new indictment (the present one) charging him with certain violations of 1782. The indictment contained eight counts. Stating the case now only in a general way, the first, second, fourth, sixth, and eighth counts charged, in substance, that the defendant, a Senator of the United States, had agreed to receive compensation, namely, the sum of $2,500, for services to be rendered by him for the Rialto Grain & Securities Company, a corporation ( to be hereafter called the Rialto Company), in relation to a proceeding, matter, and thing, in which the United States was interested, before the Postoffice Department, those counts differing only as to the nature of the interest which the United States had in such proceeding, matter, and thing; some of the counts alleging that the United States was directly, others that it was indirectly, interested in such proceeding, matter, and thing. The third, fifth, and seventh counts charged that the defendant did receive compensation to the amount of $500 for the services alleged to have been so rendered by him, those three counts differing only as to the nature of the interest, whether direct or indirect, which the United States had in the alleged proceeding, matter, and thing before the Postoffice Department. [202 U.S. 344, 361] The defendant demurred to each count. The government, at that stage of the prosecution, dismissed the indictment as to the fourth and fifth counts and the court overruled the demurrer as to all the other counts. The accused filed a plea in bar to the third and seventh counts. To that plea the government filed an answer, to which we will advert hereafter. A demurrer to that answer was overruled, and, defendant declining to plead further, the plea in bar was denied. He was then arraigned, tried, and found guilty on the first, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth counts. No judgment or sentence was pronounced on the first, second, and eighth counts, because they covered the transaction and offense mentioned in the sixth count. And as the third count covered the transaction and offense embraced by the seventh count, no judgment or sentence was pronounced on it.
It will be well to bring out fully the allegations of the two counts upon which the sentences were based. They will show the nature of the proceeding, matter, or thing before the Postoffice Department, in respect of which the defendant was indicted.
Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment having been denied the case was brought here upon writ of error.
1. The first question to be considered is whether 1782 is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. This question has been the subject of extended discussion by counsel. But we cannot doubt the authority of Congress by legislation to make it an offense against the United States for a senator, after his election and during his continuance in office, to agree to receive or to receive compensation for services to be rendered or rendered to any person, before a department of the government, in relation to a proceeding, matter, or thing in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested.
The principle that underlies 1782 is not wholly new in our legislative history. For instance, by the act of March 3d, [202 U.S. 344, 366] 1863 (12 Stat. at L. 765, chap. 92, Rev. Stat. 1058, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 731), it was declared that members of Congress shall not practise in the court of claims. Later, Congress by statute declared that no member of, or delegate to, Congress, shall, directly or indirectly, himself or by any other person in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in whole or in part, any contract or agreement made or entered into in behalf of the United States, by any officer or person authorized to make contracts on behalf of the United States; and every person violating this section was to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined $3,000. Rev. Stat. 3739, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2508.
Counsel for the accused insists that 1782 is in conflict with the fundamental idea of the Federal system; namely, that the government is one 'of limited powers, with duties and restrictions imposed, and no authority is lodged anywhere to change those duties or restrictions, except the power reserved by the people.' The proposition here stated is certainly not to be disputed; for it is settled doctrine, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall, and often repeated by this court, that 'the government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given or given by necessary implication.' Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 343, 4 L. ed. 97, 107. We do not, however, perceive that there has been in the statute before us any departure from that salutary doctrine.
It is said that the statute interferes, or, by its necessary operation, will interfere, with the legitimate authority of the Senate over its members, in that a judgment of conviction under it may exclude a Senator from the Senate before his constitutional term expires; whereas, under the Constitution, a Senator is elected to serve a specified number of years, and the Senate is made by that instrument the sole judge of the qualifications of its members, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, may expel a Senator from that body. In our judgment [202 U.S. 344, 367] there in no necessary connection between the conviction of a Senator of a public offense prescribed by statute and the authority of the Senate in the particulars named. While the framers of the Constitution intended that each department should keep within its appointed sphere of public action, it was never contemplated that the authority of the Senate to admit to a seat in its body one who had been duly elected as a Senator, or its power to expel him after being admitted, should, in any degree, limit or restrict the authority of Congress to enact such statutes, not forbidden by the Constitution, as the public interests required for carrying into effect the powers granted to it. In order to promote the efficiency of the public service and enforce integrity in the conduct of such public affairs as are committed to the several departments, Congress, having a choice of means, may prescribe such regulations to those ends as its wisdom may suggest, if they be not forbidden by the fundamental law. It possesses the entire legislative authority of the United States. By the provision in the Constitution that 'all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,' it is meant that Congress-keeping within the limits of its powers and observing the restrictions imposed by the Constitution-may, in its discretion, enact any statute appropriate to accomplish the objects for which the national government was established. A statute like the one before us has direct relation to those objects, and can be executed without in any degree impinging upon the rightful authority of the Senate over its members or interfering with the discharge of the legitimate duties of a Senator. The proper discharge of those duties does not require a Senator to appear before an executive department in order to enforce his particular views, or the views of others, in respect of matters committed to that department for determination. He may often do so without impropriety, and, so far as existing law is concerned, may do so whenever he chooses, provided he neither agrees to receive nor receives compensation for such services. Congress, when passing this statute, knew, as, indeed, [202 U.S. 344, 368] everybody may know, that executive officers are apt, and not unnaturally, to attach great, sometimes, perhaps, undue, weight to the wishes of Senators and Representatives. Evidently the statute has for its main object to secure the integrity of executive action against undue influence upon the part of members of that branch of the government, whose favor may have much to do with the appointment to, or retention in, public position of those whose official action it is sought to control or direct. The evils attending such a situation are apparent and are increased when those seeking to influence executive officers are spurred to action by hopes of pecuniary reward. There can be no reason why the government may not, by legislation, protect each department against such evils, indeed, against everything from whatever source it proceeds, that tends or may tend to corruption or inefficiency in the management of public affairs. A Senator cannot claim immunity from legislation directed to that end, simply because he is a member of a body which does not owe its existence to Congress, and with whose constitutional functions there can be no interference. If that which is enacted in the form of a statute is within the general sphere of legitimate legislative, as distinguished from executive and judicial, action, and not forbidden by the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land,-supreme over all in public stations as well as over all the people. 'No man in this country,' this court has said, 'is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.' United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 , 27 S. L. ed. 171, 181, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240. Nothing in the relations existing between a Senator, Representative, or Delegate in Congress and the public matters with which, under the Constitution, they are respectively connected from time to time, can exempt them from the rule of conduct prescribed by 1782. The enforcement of that rule will not impair or disturb those relations or cripple the power of Senators, Representatives, or Delegates to meet all rightful [202 U.S. 344, 369] or appropriate demands made upon them as public servants.
We are of opinion that 1782 does not, by its necessary operation, impinge upon the authority or powers of the Senate of the United States, nor interfere with the legitimate functions, privileges, or rights of Senators.
2. It is next contended that the indictment does not present the case of a proceeding, matter, or thing in which, within the meaning of the statute, the United States was a party or interested, nor adequately state the facts constituting the offense. These objections are, we think, without merit. Our reading of the statute and the indictment leads to the opposite conclusion.
The statute makes it an offense for a Senator, after his election, and during his continuance in office, to receive or agree to receive compensation, in any form, from any person, in relation to a proceeding, matter, or thing before a department, in which the United States is a party, or directly or indirectly interested. The scope of the statute is, in our judgment, most manifest, and the nature of the offense denounced cannot well be made clearer than it has been made by the words used to express the legislative intent. The business in respect of which the accused is charged to have both agreed to receive, and to have received, compensation, was plainly a proceeding or matter in which the United States was interested. That such proceeding or matter involved the pecuniary interests of the defendant's client is not denied. That it also involved the use of the property as well as postal facilities furnished by the United States for carrying and transporting mail matter must also be admitted. What the Postoffice Department aimed to do in the execution of the acts of Congress and the regulations established under those acts was to protect the mails of the United States from being used, in violation of law, to promote schemes for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. That [202 U.S. 344, 371] statute has its sanction in the power of the United States, by legislation, to designate what may be carried in the mails and what must be excluded therefrom; such designation and exclusion to be, however, consistent with the rights of the people as reserved by the Constitution. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 732 , 24 S. L. ed. 877, 879; Re Rapier, 143 U.S. 110 , 36 L. ed. 93, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 374; American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 , 47 L. ed. 90, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 498, 508 , 47 S. L. ed. 1093, 1098, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 789. In the proceeding, matter, and thing before the department, with which the defendant was connected as an attorney for a corporation immediately concerned in the result, the Postmaster General represented the United States, and, in the discharge of his official duties, sought to enforce a law of the United States. The United States was the real party in interest on one side, while the Rialto Company was the real party in interest on the other side. If the Postmaster General did not represent the United States, whom did he represent? The word 'interested' has different meanings, as can be readily ascertained by examining books and the adjudged cases. 4 Words & Phrases Judicially Defined, 3692; Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 399. But its meaning here is to be ascertained by considering the subject-matter of the statute in which the word appears. And it is, we think, a mistake to say that the United States was not interested, directly or indirectly, in protecting its property, that is, its mails and postal facilities, against improper and illegal use, and in the enforcement, through the agency of one of its departments, of a statute regulating such use. It would give too narrow an interpretation to the statute to hold that the United States was not interested, directly or indirectly, in a proceeding in the department having such objects in view. It is true the business before the Postoffice Department in which the Rialto Company was concerned did not assume the form of a suit in which there were parties according to the technical rules of pleading. But it was, nevertheless, in a substantial sense, a proceeding, matter, or thing before an executive department, in which both the United States and the Rialto Company were interested. [202 U.S. 344, 372] It is said that, within the meaning of the statute, the United States is not interested in any proceeding or matter pending before an executive department, unless it has a direct moneyed or pecuniary interest in the result. Under this view, Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress who are members of the bar may regularly practise their profession for compensation before the executive departments in proceedings which, if not directly involving the pecuniary interests of the United States, yet involve substantial pecuniary interests for their clients as well as the enforcement of the laws of the United States, enacted for the protection of the rights of the public. Such a view rests upon an interpretation of the statute which is wholly inadmissible. In our opinion, 1782 excludes the possibility of such a condition of things, and makes it illegal for Senators, Representatives, or Delegates to receive, or agree to receive, compensation for such services. We may add that the judgment in Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 , 49 L. ed. 482, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243, proceeded upon the ground that the case then made- and the present case, as to the facts, is much stronger against the defendant-was embraced by the statute.
It is equally true that the accused was informed with reasonable certainty by the indictment of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,-the two counts hereinbefore given at large, and upon which sentences were pronounced, being as full as any of the others. The averments of the indictment were sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, and, in the event of scquittal or conviction, the judgment could have been pleaded in bar of a second prosecution for the same offense. The accused was not entitled to more, nor could he demand that all the special or particular means employed in the commission of the offense should be more fully set out in the indictment. The words of the indictment directly, and without ambiguity, disclosed all the elements essential to the commission of the offense charged, and, therefore, within the meaning of the Constitution, and according to the rules of pleading, the defendant was informed of the nature and cause of the [202 U.S. 344, 373] accusation against him. United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 361, 362 , 24 S. L. ed. 820; United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 , 26 L. ed. 1135; Blitz v. United States, 153 U.S. 308, 315 , 38 S. L. ed. 725, 727, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924.
3. It is insisted, however, that the court below erred in not directing the jury to acquit the defendant; in other words, that the evidence in support of the indictment was so meager that the jury could not properly have found him guilty of any offense. We cannot assent to this view. There was, beyond question, evidence tending to establish on one side the defendant's guilt of the charges preferred against him; on the other side, his innocence of those charges. It will serve no useful purpose to set out all the testimony. It is sufficient to say that the whole evidence has been subjected to the most careful scrutiny, and our conclusion is that the trial court was not authorized to take the case from the jury and direct a verdict of not guilty. That course could not have been pursued consistently with the principles that underlie the system of trial by jury. The case was pre-eminently one for the determination of a jury. It was for the jury to pass upon the facts; and, as there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury, this court will not weigh the facts, and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused by the mere preponderance of evidence, but will limit its decision to questions of law. In its charge to the jury the circuit court held the scales of justice in even balance, saying all that was necessary to guard the rights of the accused. Nothing seems to have been omitted that ought to have been said nor anything said that was not entirely appropriate. Upon the general question of guilt or innocence, and as to the rules by which the jury should be guided in their consideration of the case, the circuit court, in substance, said that the indictment was not evidence in any sense, but only an accusation which it was incumbent upon the government to sustain by proof establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the presumption of law was that he was innocent of the accusation as a whole and as to every material element of it, and that such presumption abided with him from the beginning to the end of [202 U.S. 344, 374] the trial, and required, at the hands of the jury, an acquittal, unless a careful, intelligent, fair consideration of the whole evidence, attended by the presumption of innocence, produced in the mind, beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction that the defendant was guilty; and that they, the jury, were the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be attached to their testimony.
Coming then to the questions referring exclusively to the counts charging defendant with having received from the Rialto Company compensation for services rendered by him to it, the court said to the jury: 'Did he render any service for the Rialto Grain & Securities Company before the Postoffice Department in the proceeding named? On that question I charge you that if he appeared as agent or attorney of such company before the Postoffice Department, or any of its officers charged with any duty or having any authority over such fraud order proceeding, for the purpose or with the intent of influencing or obtaining action on their part favorable to such company in said proceeding, and did then, by any statement or representation respecting the business in which that company was engaged, or the manner in which it was conducting such business, endeavor to obtain any action favorable to such company on the part of the Postoffice Department, or any of its officers, in such fraud order proceeding, then he rendered service for said company within th meaning of the statute. And I further charge you that if he appeared as agent or attorney of such company before the Postoffice Department, or any of its officers charged with any duty or having any authority over such fraud order proceeding, for the purpose or with the intent of influencing them in respect of their action in said proceeding, and did then arrange with the Department, or any of its officers, that a hearing should be had in respect of such matter, and then also assured the Department, or any of its officers, that it was the purpose of said company to comply strictly with the law, and then also arranged that no action should be taken against said company in said proceeding without his being first notified thereof, that would constitute services within the meaning of the statute. Did he, at St. Louis, [202 U.S. 344, 377] Missouri, on the 26th day of March, 1903, receive from the Rialto Grain & Securities Company any payment of money as compensation for such services?' Here the court gave instructions, seven in number, asked by the defendant. They were not objected to by the government and need not be set out.
4. Another point made by defendant is that he could not legally be indicted for two separate offenses, one for agreeing to receive compensation in violation of the statute, and the other for receiving such compensation. This is an erroneous interpretation of the statute, and does violence to its words. It was certainly competent for Congress to make the agreement to receive, as well as the receiving of, the forbidden compensation, separate, distinct offenses. The statute, in apt words, expresses that thought by saying: 'No Senator . . . shall receive or agree to receive any compensation whatever, directly or indirectly, for any services rendered or to be rendered,' etc. There might be an agreement to receive compensation for services to be rendered without any compensation ever being in fact made, and yet that agreement would be covered by the statute as an offense. Or, compensation might be received for the forbidden services without any previous agreement, and yet the statute would be violated. In this case, the subject-matter of the sixth count, which charged an agreement to receive $2,500, was more extensive than that charged in the seventh count, which alleged the receipt of $500. But Congress intended to place its condemnation upon each distinct, separate part of every transaction coming within the mischiefs intended to be reached and remedied. Therefore an agreement to receive compensation was made an offense. So the receiving of compensation in violation of the statute, whether pursuant to a previous agreement or not, was made another and separate offense. There is, in our judgment, no escape from this interpretation consistently with the established rule that the intention of the legislature must govern in the interpretation of a statute. 'It is the legislature, not [202 U.S. 344, 378] the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.' United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L. ed. 37, 42; H. Hackfield & Co. v. United States, 197 U.S. 442, 450 , 49 S. L. ed. 826, 829, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456.
The first and second counts of the indictment in the former case charged that the defendant, in violation of the statute, and on March 26th, 1903, unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly took, accepted, and received $500 'from the Rialto Grain & Securities Company,' for services rendered in its behalf in a matter before the Postoffice Department in which the United States was interested. Those two counts differed only as to the interest, whether direct or indirect, of the United States in that matter. The third count in the former indictment charged that on March 26th, 1903, the defendant unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly took, accepted, and received $500 'from one W. D. Mahaney' (described as an officer and employee of the Rialto Company), as compensation for services rendered by defendant to that company in a matter before the Postoffice Department in which the United States was directly interested. The jury in the former case convicted the defendant on the first and second counts and acquitted him on the third count; in other words, they found, in effect, that he received money from the company, but not from Mahaney. Upon writ of error sued out by defendant this court reversed the judgment and sent the case back with directions for a new trial. Whether that reversal, upon defendant's own writ of error, had the effect, within the principle of Trono v. United States (recently decided) 199 U.S. 521 , 50 L. ed. --, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, to take from him the benefit of his acquittal on the third count in the former case, we need not decide. It may be assumed, for the purposes of this discussion, that it did not.
The defendant pleaded the judgment of acquittal on the third count in the former indictment in bar of this prosecution [202 U.S. 344, 379] as based on the third and seventh counts in the present indictment. In its answer to that plea the government alleged that, while the third and seventh counts of the present indictment are identical in legal effect with counts one and two of the former indictment, 'the offense charged against the defendant in said counts three and seven of the indictment herein is not identical in legal effect with said count three of said original indictment.' The defendant, as we have seen, demurred to the answer. The demurrer having been overruled, and the defendant declining to plead further, the plea in bar was overruled and denied.
As no issue was taken upon the answer, by replication, the question presented is whether, upon the face of the record, as matter of law simply, the offense charged in the third and seventh counts of the present indictment is the same as that charged in the third count of the former indictment. This question must be answered in the negative, unless the charge, in the present indictment, that the money in question was received by the defendant 'from the Rialto Grain & Securities Company,' is the same, in law, as the charge, in the former indictment, that he received it 'from one W. D. Mahaney,' mentioned as an officer and employee of the Rialto Grain & Securities Company. We could not so hold, for the reason that the two charges do not necessarily import, in law, the same thing. The only support for the contrary view is found in the words, added after Mahaney's name, describing him to be an officer and employee of the Rialto Company. But those words are to be taken only as descriptive of the person, or as identifying the person from whom, it was charged, the defendant, in fact, received the money. It was not alleged in the former indictment that Mahaney paid the money to the defendant in behalf of, or by direction of, the company. This distinction was manifestly in the mind of the jury in the former case; for, while they found the defendant guilty of having received forbidden compensation from the company, they found him not guilty of having received such compensation from Mahaney. [202 U.S. 344, 380] The defendant may have received such compensation from Mahaney, but it may not have been paid by direction of the company. So, in a legal sense, it may have been received from the company, although paid by the hands of Mahaney. It cannot be held otherwise, as matter of law, upon the face of the two indictments, apart from any evidence. And there was no evidence in support of the plea or in refutation of the answer. The defendant simply demurred to the answer, thereby admitting its averments of fact; and, without a replication, and without any evidence, rested his defense of former jeopardy upon the face of the two indictments. As the effect of the reversal of the judgment in the former case was to set aside the judgment of conviction on the first and second counts of the original indictment, the way was opened for another trial on those counts. But the government elected not to proceed under that indictment, but to have a new one embodying the same charge as to the $500 that was made in the former case. Its right to adopt that course cannot be questioned. In our judgment, the defendant cannot plead his acquittal upon the charge of having received forbidden compensation from Mahaney in bar of a prosecution upon the charge of having received such compensation from the company. A plea of autrefois acquit must be upon a prosecution for the same identical offense. 4 Bl. Com. 336. It must appear that the offense charged, using the words of Chief Justice Shaw, 'was the same in law and in fact. The plea will be vicious if the offenses charged in the two indictments be perfectly distinct in point of law, however nearly they may be connected in fact.' Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. 502. Looking, as we must, only at the face of the original and the present indictments, the two charges must be regarded as separate and distinct. The plea of former jeopardy in this case presents a technical defense, and cannot be allowed for the reason that the offense of which the defendant was heretofore acquitted does not plainly appear, as matter of law, upon the face of the record, to be identical with the one of which he has been convicted in this case. [202 U.S. 344, 381] If, at the trial below, under the present indictment, proof had been made that the $500 was paid by Mahaney, and that he was an officer and employee of the Rialto Company,-if the proof had gone no farther,-the jury would not have been authorized to find that the money was received from the company; whereas, the same proof would have sustained the charge in the third count of the original indictment. This shows that the two charges were not identical, in law, and that the same evidence would not have sustained each. It is well settled that 'the jeopardy is not the same when the two indictments are so diverse as to preclude the same evidence from sustaining both.' 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 1051; Wilson v. State, 24 Conn. 57, 63, 64. For these reasons we hold that the court below properly sustained the answer to the plea, and, the defendant not pleading further, the plea in bar was properly overruled and denied.
6. An important point remains to be considered. It relates to the jurisdiction of the court below to try the defendant for the crime alleged.
The Constitution requires that the trial of all crimes against the United States shall be held in the state and the district where such crimes shall have been committed. Const. art. 3, 2, 6th Amendment. The contention of the accused is that, in no view of the evidence, can he be said to have committed any offense in the state of Missouri; consequently, the Federal court, holden at St. Louis, was without jurisdiction, under the Constitution, to try him. The contention of the government is that the alleged offense was committed at St. Louis, and that it was proper to try the defendant in the district embracing that city.
The evidence further tended to show that during the five months following the acceptance of his offer at St. Louis, the defendant acted as counsel for the Rialto Company before the Postoffice Department when requested or when it was necessary, and received from the company a salary of $500 per month for his services to it,-the salary for each of the first four months being paid by the company's check, drawn at [202 U.S. 344, 384] St. Louis upon a St. Louis bank, and made payable to the defendant's order, which check was sent from St. Louis to the defendant at Washington. The last month's salary of $500 was paid in cash to defendant at St. Louis, in the company's office, on March 26th, 1903, on which date, with his own consent he was discharged as the company's attorney, his services being no longer required. The evidence also tended to show that during the whole period of the defendant's employment and service as the company's attorney he relied or counted upon the acceptance of his offer on the 18th day of November, 1902, as evidencing an agreement then concluded between him and the company in respect of compensation. He received the letter of November 18th by due course of mail, and does not deny having received the telegram previously sent to him, the same day, on the same subject. Nothing was said or done by him during the whole period of his service as the company's counsel that was inconsistent with the agreement established by the evidence. All that he did, said, or wrote was consistent with the idea that he regarded the acceptance at St. Louis, of his offer, as completing the agreement between him and the company. From the time of such acceptance he was entitled, so far as the agreement was concerned, to demand, and he in fact received, the stipulated salary.
In Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U.S. 411, 424 , 37 S. L. ed. 790, 794, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811, 866, the court, referring to the Tayloe Case, again held that when an offer is made and accepted by the posting of a letter of acceptance, the contract is complete according to the terms of the offer.
Kent says: 'In creating the contract, the negotiation may be conducted by letter, as is very common in mercantile transactions; and the contract is complete when the answer containing the acceptance of a distinct proposition is despatched by mail or otherwise, provided it be done with due diligence, after the receipt of the letter containing the proposal, and before any intimation is received that the offer is withdrawn. Putting the answer by letter in the mail containing the acceptance, and thus placing it beyond the control of the party, is [202 U.S. 344, 386] valid as a constructive notice of acceptance. An offer by letter, or by special agent, is an authority revocable in itself, but not to be revoked without notice to the party receiving it, and never after it has been executed by an acceptance. There would be no certainty in making contracts through the medium of the mail, if the rule were otherwise.' 2 Kent, Com. 477.
The authorities to the same effect are too numerous to be cited, but we refer particularly to Vassar v. Camp, 11 N. Y. 441, 445; Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend. 103, 21 Am. Dec. 262; Adams v. Lindsell, 1 Barn. & Ald. 681; Re Imperial Land Co. L. R. 7 Ch. 587; Household Fire & Carriage Acci. Ins. Co. v. Grant, L. R. 4 Exch. Div. 218; Perry v. Mt. Hope Iron Co. 15 R. I. 380, 381, 2 Am. St. Rep. 902, 5 Atl. 632; Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 103, 1 Am. Rep. 28; Averill v. Hedge, 12 Conn. 424; Chiles v. Nelson, 7 Dana, 281; Washburn v. Fletcher, 42 Wis. 152; Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Collier White Lead Co. 4 Dill. 434, Fed. Cas. No. 9,635; Maclay v. Harvey, 32 Am. Rep. 40 note and authorities cited (90 Ill. 525); Levy v. Cohen, 4 Ga. 1, 13; Falls v. Gaither, 9 Port. (Ala.) 605, 612; 2 Redf. Railways, 338, 339; Pom. Contr. 95; 1 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. 483; 2 Parsons, Contr. 257, note; Metcalf, Contr. 17; Thompson, Electricity, 425-478; Scott & J. Telegraphs, 295 et seq.; Addison, Contr. 16, 17. Whether the acceptance by the Rialto Company of the defendant's offer is to be regarded as effectively made by the telegram duly sent to him, or only when the letter addressed to him by the Rialto counsel was duly mailed at St. Louis, or in both ways, in any event, the acceptance promptly and adequately occurred on the 18th of November, 1902, at St. Louis, on which day and at which place it is to be deemed that the minds of the parties met, the agreement becoming complete the moment of the acceptance of defendant's offer, without the necessity of formal notice to the company that Burton had received information of its acceptance of his offer.
But this, the defendant insists, is not enough to show that [202 U.S. 344, 387] the alleged offense was committed at St. Louis. Counsel would seem to contend that the physical absence of the accused from St. Louis, when the offer was received by the company and when the agreement was concluded, rendered it impossible that he could have committed the alleged offense at that city. In substance, the contention is that an individual could not, in law or within the meaning of the Constitution, commit a crime within a state in which he is not physically present at the time the crime is committed.
The constitutional requirement is that the crime shall be tried in the state and district where committed; not necessarily in the state or district where the party committing it happened to be at the time. This distinction was brought out and recognized in Re palliser (Palliser v. United States) 136 U.S. 257, 265 , 34 S. L. ed. 514, 517, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034. Palliser was indicted in the district court of the United States for the district of Connecticut for violating certain statutes relating to the disposal of postage stamps, and forbidding postmasters not only to dispose of postage stamps in the payment of debts or in the purchase of commodities, or to pledge them, but also to sell or dispose of them except for cash. By letter written and mailed at New York and addressed to a postmaster in Connecticut, Palliser made to that officer an offer of contract which could not have been accepted by the latter without violating the above statutes. This court held that the offer in Palliser's letter was a tender of a contract with the intent to induce the postmaster to sell postage stamps for credit, in violation of his duty, and that the case, therefore, came within 5451 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3680), providing that 'every person who promises, offers, or gives, or causes or procures to be promised, offered, or given, any money or other thing of value, or makes or tenders any contract, undertaking, obligation, gratuity, or security for the payment of money, or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value to any officer of the United States, . . . with intent to influence him to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in or allow any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States, [202 U.S. 344, 388] or to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty, shall be punished' by fine and imprisonment.
The question arose whether Palliser, who did not go into Connecticut, could be punished in that state for the offense alleged against him. This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Gray, said: 'The petitioner relies on those provisions of the Constitution of the United States which declare that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to be tried by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been conmmitted. Art. 3, 2; Amendments, art. 6. But the right thereby secured is not a right to be tried in the district where the accused resides, or even in the district in which he is personally at the time of committing the crime, but in the district 'wherein the crime shall have been committed.' . . . When a crime is committed partly in one district and partly in another, it must, in order to prevent an absolute failure of justice, be tried in either district, or in that one which the legislature may designate; and Congress has accordingly provided, that 'when any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in any other it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either district, in the same manner and as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein.' Rev. Stat. 731, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 585.' In that case the court said it was universally admitted that when a shot fired in one jursidiction strikes a person in another jurisdiction, the offender may be tried where the shot takes effect.
If the sending by the defendant to the Rialto Company from Chicago to St. Louis of the offer above referred to was the beginning of negotiations for an agreement in violation of 1782, the agreement between the parties was completed at the time of the acceptance of the defendant's offer at St. Louis on November 18th, 1902. Then the offense was committed, and it was committed at St. Louis, notwithstanding the defendant was not personally present in Missouri when his offer was accepted and the agreement was completed. [202 U.S. 344, 389] The principle announced in Palliser's case was reaffirmed in Horner v. United States, 143 U.S. 207 , 36 L. ed. 126, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407, in which it was held that the district court of the United States in Illinois had jurisdiction to try one charged with having violated the statute relating to the sending of lottery matter in the mails, in that he had unlawfully caused to be delivered to a certain person in that district lottery circulars conveyed by mail in a sealed letter that he had deposited in the mail at New York, addressed to and to be delivered to such person in Illinois. The fact that the accused was in New York when the lottery circulars were mailed, and not personally present in Illinois when the offense was completed by the delivery there of the lottery circulars to the person to whom they were sent, was held to be immaterial, and not to defeat the jurisdiction of the Federal court in Illinois to try the accused.
It cannot be maintained, according to the adjudged cases, that the personal absence of the defendant Burton from St. Louis, at the time his offer was accepted, and when the agreement between him and the company was completed and became binding, as between the parties, deprived the Federal court there of jurisdiction. He sent his offer to St. Louis with the intent that it should be there accepted and consummated. Having been completed at that city in conformity with the intention of both parties, an offense was, in the eye of the law, committed there; and when the court below assumed jurisdiction of this case it did not offend the constitutional requirement that a crime against the United States shall be tried in the state and district where it was committed.
Other questions were discussed by counsel, but we have alluded to all involving the substantial rights of the accused that are mentioned in their briefs of points and authorities, and which we deem it necessary to notice.
Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the judgment based on the count charging the receipt of forbidden compensation, but does not concur in the judgment on the count charging simply an agreement to receive compensation. He is of opinion that [202 U.S. 344, 390] the agreement to receive and the receipt of compensation constitute, under the circumstances of this case, but one offense.
A conviction of plaintiff in error on an indictment charging substantially the same offenses as are charged in the present case was reversed by this court. 196 U.S. 283 , 49 L. ed. 482, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243. In the opinion then filed it was stated that four Justices of this court ( the writer of this being among the number) were of the opinion that the matters charged against the defendant were not made offenses by the statute under which the indictment was found. Nothing was said in that opinion in respect to this matter beyond the simple statement of the conclusions of the several Justices. As one of the four, I think the importance of the case justifies me in stating the reasons which led to that conclusion, and which induces belief that the present conviction is wrongful.
'2. It must be a pecuniary or proprietary interest, a relation by which, as a debtor or creditor, an heir or legatee, or otherwise, he will gain or lose something by the result of the proceedings, in contradistinction to an interest of feeling, or sympathy or bias, which would disqualify a juror. Smith v. Bradstreet, 16 Pick. 264.
'3. It must be certain, and not merely possible or contingent. Hawes v. Humphrey, 9 Pick. 350, 20 Am. Dec. 481; Wilbraham v. Hampden County, 11 Pick. 322, Danvers v. Essex County, 2 Metc. 185. It must be direct and personal, though such a personal interest may result from a relation which the judge holds as the member of a town, parish, or other corporation, [202 U.S. 344, 393] where it is not otherwise provided by law, if such corporation has a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the proceedings.
See also Com. v. O'Neil, 6 Gray, 343; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209, 12 Am. St. Rep. 190, 4 So. 525; Bowman's Case 67 Mo. 146.
If the word 'interested' was not used in this section in this ordinary legal sense, the words 'in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested' are surplusage, because, in respect to every proceeding before a department or other tribunal, the United States as parens patrioe has an interest, in what Chief Justice Shaw calls the 'loose' sense of the term. Indeed, what significance is there in inserting the words from 'contract' to 'interested,' inclusive, unless some distinct limitation was intended? If the language was 'in relation to any proceeding before any department, court-martial,' etc., it would express the intent to exclude [202 U.S. 344, 397] Senators from appearance for compensation in any and all matters before the departments. Inserting the clause above referred to obviously means a limitation, and no other limitation is suggested except that which limits it to matters in which the government is pecuniarly interested. Neither do the words 'or any other matter or thing' enlarge the scope of the prohibition so as to take in matters of a different nature. The rule of construction regarding the effect of such words when following an enumeration of subjects is that they are to be held as meaning any other matter or thing of a like or similar nature to those already named, so that all subjects of that kind may be included, and none escape by reason of not being specially named. They do not open the statute to all kinds of matters or things not of the same nature as those already named. Otherwise there would be no sense in the prior enumeration. Hermance v. Ulster County, 71 N. Y. 481; People v. New York & M. B. R. Co. 84 N. Y. 565; Thames & M. Marine Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 484.
Doubtless the government is charged with the supervision of the action of all its officials, but that supervision does not, of itself, create a pecuniary interest. This court has a supervising control of the lower Federal judicial tribunals. We are interested in seeing that full justice is done in all cases therein. But that duty of supervision and review creates no pecuniary interest, and does not disqualify a single one of us from participating in the consideration of this case.
If it be said that the government is pecuniarily interested in the postage the amount of which might be affected by the issue of a fraud order, it is enough to say that there is no proof of any such interest. Further, postage is received in payment for services rendered in transportation . If no services are rendered no postage is received. The issue of a fraud order does not put a stop to the carrying of letters. It simply stops the delivery. It may be that when knowledge of the issue of a fraud order becomes widespread, the number of letters may be [202 U.S. 344, 398] diminished, but, as heretofore said, diminishing the amount of mail matter diminishes likewise the cost thereof. The government is no more interested in an increase or diminution of the amounts received by railroad and other carriers for transporting the mails, or those received by stamp contractors for the manufacture of stamps, than it is in the fees received by marshals, clerks, and other officers for services rendered to individuals. In any event, opposing a fraud order would not, in the language of the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, hereinafter quoted, be a suit against the government.
'No member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives of the United States shall, during his continuance in office, hereafter appear or act as counsel, attorney, or agent in any cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court-civil, criminal, military, or naval-or before any commission, in which the United States is a party or directly or indirectly interested, or receive any compensation of any kind, directly or indirectly, for services of any description rendered by himself or another in relation to any such cause or proceeding;'-and they were stricken out.
While much weight must not be given to the declarations of individual Senators, those which are embodied in the reports of the chairmen of the judiciary committees are certainly entitled to consideration, and they show clearly that the intent of Congress in this enactment was to prevent Senators and other officials of the government from receiving compensation for assisting in the prosecution of claims against the government. It would be the height of absurdity to suppose anyone believed that a Senator should be debarred from the right of appearing in any court in cases in which the government is without a pecuniary interest, and yet, that was the scope of the bill as originally presented, if the present construction of the statute is sustained.
Further, while it may be true that executive officers are apt to give undue weight to the wishes of Senators, yet, there is nothing in this statute to prevent a Senator from exerting all his influence over them. He may prosecute any claims in behalf of his constituents or others, even though the government is directly and largely pecuniarily interested. He may appear in any matter or proceeding pending before one of the departments, and there is nothing in the statute to prohibit it. The only restriction is that he must himself have no pecuniary interest in the matter. The denunciation is against his receiving, or agreeing to receive, compensation for his services. Is it not reasonable to believe that, if pecuniary interest on his [202 U.S. 344, 400] part is the only bar to his action, a like pecuniary interest on the part of the government is that interest on the other side intended by the statute?
Other matters of moment have been discussed by counsel, but as this is fundamental, and upon it rests the whole prosecution, I have preferred to express my views on this matter alone. It seems clear to my mind that the construction now given writes into the statute an offense which Congress never placed there. It is a criminal case, and, in such a case above all, judicial legislation is to be deprecated.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham concur in these views.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 3
 art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.