Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/233/223/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 17:51:42
Document Index: 659560411

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 117', '§ 161', '§ 463', '§ 20', '§ 2139', '§ 465']

www.chanrobles.com UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 233 > UNITED STATES V. BIRDSALL, 233 U. S. 223 (1914)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 233 U. S. 223 U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914)United States v. BirdsallNo. 727, 728, 729Submitted and argued January 8, 9, 1914Restored to docket for reargument January 19, 1914Reargued February 25, 1914Decided April 6, 1914233 U.S. 223ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The action of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in advising the chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 224
The facts, which involve the validity of indictments under §§ 39 and 117, Criminal Code for giving and accepting bribes, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 227
Separate indictments were found against the several defendants. There were two indictments against the defendant Birdsall (which were consolidated), charging him with having given to Brents and Van Wert, respectively, a bribe in violation of § 39 of the Criminal Code. The indictments against Brents and Van Wert were for accepting the bribes in violation of § 117. Demurrer to each indictment, upon the ground that it charged no offense, was sustained by the district court. 206 F.8d 8. The cases are brought here under the Criminal Appeals Act. 34 Stat. 1246, c. 2564.
In view of the nature of the question presented, it is not necessary to consider the indictments separately. According to the allegations, Birdsall was attorney for certain persons who, on indictment for unlawfully selling chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 228
"That then and there, and during all the dates and times herein mentioned, it was and long had been the Page 233 U. S. 229
The indictments against Birdsall charged him with having given money to Brents and Van Wert with intent to influence their official action so that they would advise the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, contrary to the truth, chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 230
Every action that is within the range of official duty comes within the purview of these sections. There was thus a legislative basis (United States v. George, 228 U. S. 14, 228 U. S. 22) for the charge in the present cases if the action sought to be influenced was official action. To constitute chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 231
it official action, it was not necessary that it should be prescribed by statute; it was sufficient that it was governed by a lawful requirement of the department under whose authority the officer was acting. Rev.Stat. § 161; Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 198 U. S. 12; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 216 U. S. 480. Nor was it necessary that the requirement should be prescribed by a written rule or regulation. It might also be found in an established usage which constituted the common law of the department and fixed the duties of those engaged in its activities. 32 U. S. 14. In numerous instances, duties not completely defined by written rules are clearly established by settled practice, and action taken in the course of their performance must be regarded as within the provisions of the above-mentioned statutes against bribery. Haas v. Henkel, supra.@
206 F.8d 8, 821.
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, "under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe," is chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 232
charged with "the management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations" (Rev.Stat. § 463). The object of the establishment of the office was to create an administrative agency with broad powers adequate to the execution of the policy of the government, as determined by the acts of Congress, with respect to the Indians under its guardianship. From an early day, Congress has prohibited the liquor traffic among the Indians, and it has been one of the important duties of the Indian Office to aid in the enforcement of this legislation. See Act of June 30, 1834, c. 161, § 20, 4 Stat. 729, 732; Rev.Stat. §§ 2139-2141; Act of July 23, 1892, c. 234, 27 Stat. 260; Act of January 30, 1897, c. 109, 29 Stat. 506. It has furnished such aid by the detection of violations, by the collection of evidence, and by appropriate steps to secure the conviction and punishment of offenders. The regulations of the office, adopted under statutory authority (Rev.Stat. §§ 465, 2058), have been explicit as to the duties of Indian agents in this respect. [Footnote 1] In recent years, Congress has chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 233
made special appropriations "to enable the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to take action to suppress the traffic of intoxicating liquors among Indians" (34 Stat. 328, 1017; 35 Stat. 72, 782; 36 Stat. 271, 1059; 37 Stat. 519), and an organization of special officers and deputies, serving in various states, has been created in the department. Through these efforts numerous convictions have been obtained. The results have been reported to Congress annually by the Commissioner, [Footnote 2] and the appropriations for the continuance of the service have been increased. [Footnote 3] chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 234
Nor is there any ground for the conclusion that the President is limited to obtaining direct reports to himself in such matters. By virtue of his relation to the department, he may require the reports to be made to the Attorney General, who, by the direction of the President, may be entrusted with the duty of securing the information and recommendations which the President should have in order properly to pass upon applications for clemency, and for these purposes the department could require chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 235
The Commissioner was entitled to give his recommendations to the judge or to the United States attorney upon request, and he had complete power under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior to establish rules and usages in the department by which he could secure correct information and uncorrupted advice from every one of his subordinates. None of these officers could properly say that in reporting with respect to the effect of leniency in particular cases he was acting outside the sphere of official conduct, and the giving and acceptance of bribes to influence their reports and recommendations chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPage 233 U. S. 236