Document: 380 U.S. 157 85 S.Ct. 868 13 L.Ed.2d 728 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD et al. No. 232. Argued Jan. 21, 1965. Decided March 8, Robert B. Hummel, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Edward O. Proctor, Sr., Boston, Mass., appellees. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a direct appeal under Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, from District Court's order dismissing Count I an indictment (225 F.Supp. 577) failure to state offense 10 Clayton 38 Stat. 734, 15 20. That section provides in relevant part: 2 'No common carrier engaged commerce shall have any dealings securities, supplies, or other articles commerce, make contracts construction maintenance kind, amount more than $50,000, aggregate, one year, with another corporation, firm, partnership, association when said upon its board directors as president, manager, purchasing selling officer, agent particular transaction, person who at same time director, officer of, has substantial interest in, such association, unless and except purchases be made from, with, bidder whose bid most favorable carrier, ascertained by competitive bidding regulations prescribed rule otherwise Interstate Commerce Commission. * *' (Italics added.) 3 charged that appellee railroad three appellees, road's sale on August 14, 1958, coaches valued excess $50,000 International Railway Equipment Corp. which officers had 'a interest,' not having been used. count McGinnis knowingly voted all directed act. A bill particulars1 described 'substantial interest' those corporation follows: 4 'The defendants Glacy defendant consisted understanding, agreement, relationship, arrangement concert action among McGinnis, Glacy, International, others, for, things, purpose producing profits it property acquired B&M through intervention, direction assistance Benson, pursuant Benson were did receive monies.' The Court held: 5 statute limited then present legal buying does include only outcome what may illegal illicit plan siphon off his personal benefit Boston Maine Railroad medium International.' 225 F.Supp., 578. 6 criminal construed strictly, loosely. Such are teachings our cases United States v. Wiltberger, Wheat. 76, L.Ed. 37, down this day. Chief Marshall case: 7 penal laws is, perhaps, much less old itself. It founded tenderness law rights individuals; plain principle power punishment vested legislative, judicial department.' Id., p. 95. 8 fact activity within general classification policy covered necessarily bring ambit prohibition. Weitzel, 246 533, 381, 62 872. 9 What reach 10? strictly conflict we dealt Mississippi Valley Co., 364 520, 81 294, 268. In Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. States, 361 173, 190, 80 229, 239, 223, 'an antitrust law.' Section 10, indeed, roots President Wilson's message Congress January 20, 1914, subject 'trusts,' he denounced abuses 'interlockings personnel directorates great corporations.' 51 Cong.Rec.1962—1964; H.R.Rep.No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 17 18. started part House forbade certain types interlocking office-holding. See S.Doc.No. 584, 10. Senate two main changes. First, prohibit officeholding but seized rather control. S.Rep.No. 698, 47—48. Second, required director was also firm 'any indirect in' firm. 13. Conference changed phrase wording in.' 14. As Senator Chilton, Conferees, reported: 11 '* prevents corporations interlocked directors, says: 'Or them.' 12 will recall before us, ease could gotten around; words, you your son, cousin, lawyer, accomplish thing if yourself. They can dodge supply company, even though they discarded form there chooses call it, prohibited.' Cong.Rec. 15943. 14 seen, charges 'transaction' sell particulars suggests agreed individual appellees would monies' their effecting sale. earnestly urged since stood profit deal meaning pointed out scandals age multiple shareholding, suppliers materials gifts officials whom dealt. re Financial Transactions New York, N.H. H.R.Co., 31 I.C.C. 32.2 But confined words used If strict followed, in,' presuppose either existing investment some kind creation use, joint venture continued course dealings, licit illicit, sharing. doubtful indictment, illuminated particulars, alleges anything substance bribe. Bribery might well family offenses statute. remote frame reference. While history shows wide pattern misconduct leading narrow prohibition applicable conceptually philosophy. We cannot broaden case, attribute panacea activities; neither do take view Since Government choose file, allow, amended particulars,3 vacate remand leaving open questions 16 Vacated remanded. case decided below argued here assumption that, although itself sufficient against motion dismiss, became insufficient reason particulars. held, however, 'the forms no record purposes demurrer.' Comyns, 248 349, 353, 39 98, 99, 63 287 (emphasis supplied); Dunlop 165 486, 375, 41 799. parties attempt invoke stage proceeding, express whether demurrers motions dismiss Rule 12, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. Commission 'Purchases cars coal large expenditures railroads make. Haven purchased almost exclusively James Brady without competition extent $37,000,000. Brady, witness, secret generosity business. His methods justified him ground friends.' I.C.C., 61. 7(f) Rules Procedure provides, 'A conditions justice requires.'

Category: 7