Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/236/405/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 00:32:27
Document Index: 792085314

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 125', '§ 2289', '§ 5392', '§ 2246', '§ 2289', '§ 5', '§ 2478', '§ 2291']

US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 236 > UNITED STATES V. SMULL, 236 U. S. 405 (1915)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 236 U. S. 405
A charge of perjury may be based on § 125, Criminal Code, for knowingly swearing falsely to an affidavit required either expressly by Act of Congress or by an authorized regulation of the Land Department. chanrobles.com-red
The facts, which involve the construction and application of Rev.Stat., § 2289, and the validity of an indictment for perjury for violation thereof, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red
This statute takes the place of the similar provision of § 5392 of the Revised Statutes, which in turn was a substitute for a number of statutes in regard to perjury, and was phrased so as to embrace all cases of false swearing, whether in a court of justice or before administrative officers acting within their powers (see revisors' report, Vol. 2, pp. 2582, 2583). 236 U. S. 522. Section 125 of the Criminal Code must be read in the light of § 2246 of the Revised Statutes, which is explicit:
The prohibition was carried forward into the Revised Statutes (§§ 2289, 2298; Act of March 3, 1891, c. 561, § 5, 26 Stat. 1098), and the authority of the Department to enforce it was continued, and not diminished (§ 2478). It would seem to be plain that a rule requiring an affidavit from the applicant, stating whether or not he had made other entries was suitably addressed to the execution of the law. United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238; Caha v. United States, 152 chanrobles.com-red
U.S. 211; United States v. Grimaud, supra; United States v. Birdsall, supra; Leonard v. Lennox,181 F.7d 0, 766-767.
It is not a case where the statute points out the character of the proof to be required as to the particular fact, and thus impliedly denies authority to exact proof of a different sort. Thus, with respect to final proof of residence and cultivation, § 2291 of the Revised Statutes requires the proof to be made by "two credible witnesses," not by the claimant; accordingly it was held that Congress had provided the "exact measure" of the claimant's obligation, and that the Department could neither add to nor detract from it. United States v. George, 228 U. S. 14. But chanrobles.com-red