Legal Document

364 U.S. 51 80 Supreme Court Reporter 1589 4 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1563 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Lucille Aldine DEGE et al. Number 14. Argued Oct. 20, 1959. Decided June 27, 1960. Mr. Jerome M. Feit, for appellant. Thomas Whelan, New York City, appellees. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is an indictment charging husband and wife with conspiring to commit offense against in violation § 371 Title 18 Code, Code Annotated KF65 U5 371, which was enacted by Congress on 25, 1948, 62 683, 701, connection 545 that 545, id., 716, they sought illicitly bring goods into intent defraud it. On authority controlling decisions its Circuit, Dawson versus States, 9 Cir., 10 Federal Reporter, 2nd 106, Gros 138 261, District dismissed ground it did not state offense, wit, a are legally incapable within condemnation 371. The case came here direct review order dismissing indictment, 358 944, 79 352, 3 351, under Criminal Appeals Act March 2, 1907, now KF62 s 3731, 3731. construction Ninth Circuit has been explicitly rejected Columbia Johnson 81 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 157 209, Fifth Thompson 227 671, Wright 243 569. 2 question raised these conflicting views clear-cut uncomplicated. claim outside scope enactment making two persons conspire, must be given short shrift once we heed admonition this 'we free our minds from notion criminal statutes construed some artificial conventional rule,' Union Supply Co., 215 50, 55, 30 15, 16, 54 L.Ed. 87, therefore do allow ourselves obfuscated medieval regarding legal status woman common law's reflection them. Considering legitimate business enterprises between have long commonplaces time, would enthrone unreality rule law suggest man engaging illicit therefore, forsooth, engage None considerations policy touching encouragement or di couragement domestic felicities basis determined appropriate rules testimonial compulsion as spouses, Hawkins 74, 136, 125, Wyatt 362 525, 901, relevant yielding unqualified interdiction conspiracy precludes being persons. Such immunity pair conspirators attribute one assumptions: either responsibility joint participation enterprise make marital disharmony, presumed act coercive influence her and, cannot willing participant. former assumption unnourished sense; latter implies view American womanhood offensive ethos society. fact matter asked write doctrine parrot-like repeated texts what authoritative expression early eighteenth century. He wrote: 5 'It plainly appears Words Statute, That Person alone guilty Conspiracy Purport it; whence follows, * no such Prosecution maintainable Husband Wife only, because esteemed but Law, 'Will.' (Hawkins, Pleas Crown, 4th ed. 1762, Bk. I, chap. lxxii, Sect. 8, Page 192.) 6 pronouncement apparently rests Year Book 38 Edward III, decided 1365. learning invoked ancient questioned modern scholarship. See Williams, Legal Unity Wife, Mod.L.Rev., 16 (1947); cf. Winfield, History (1921), 64, 37, 88. But any event answer his authority, decision 1960 construing statute definitively made ago Holmes: 7 revolting better reason than so laid down time Henry IV. It still more if grounds upon vanished since, simply persists blind imitation past.' Holmes, Collected Papers, 187 (1920), reprinting Path Harv.L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897). 8 For Hawkins's formulation 'are Will' indeed 'blind require us disregard vast changes woman—the extension rights correlative duties—whereby wife's submission wholly wiped out, only English-speaking world generally emphatically country. How far removed were even nearly century when passed original conspiracy, 1867, 14 Statutes-at-Large 484, social climate pithily illustrated recalling self-deluding romanticism Blackstone, whereby he could conscientiously maintain 'even disabilities, lies under, most part intended protection benefit. So great favourite female sex laws England.' Commentaries Laws England (1765), ch. 433. idle parade document statement common-law disabilities extensively swept away different society, both legislation adjudication, before originating 1867 passed. Suffice say infuse fictitious attribution regard woman's submissiveness benevolent powers relieve obligation obedience unqualifiedly expressed person whose personality merged one. Reversed. 11 Chief WARREN, whom BLACK WHITTAKER join, dissenting. 12 If Court's reflects all there case, astonishing taken many years federal judiciary loose itself chains husband-wife doctrine. problem, sees it, almost absurdly uncomplicated: subject charge one; know two, charge. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions submit simplistic approach will do. 13 does assert widely accepted presumably Congress' understanding reach statute, nonetheless should reject finds nonsensical. Instead, position (of women) passed.' 15 But, however rapidly nineteenth jurisprudence moved toward recognition individuality women other areas, inaccurate imply changed apace. In fact, earliest repudiating Government able cite Dalton People, 68 Colo. 44, 189 Pacific KF135 P2 decided, puts '(a)s 1920.' And anachronism today, says, unusual hardiness demonstrated represents departure general prevails today world. As recently 1957, Privy Council approved doctrine,1 Commonwealth courts accord.2 decisions, see Annotations Law 266; 71 1116; 46 Reports, 1275. Thus seems clear reflect erroneous. believe focus intent, inasmuch indication meant change 1948 re-enacted without material variation old statute.3 Surely well established legislative purpose passed, absence explicit subsequent repudiation Congress.4 Consequently, compelled dissent whether believed supported reason. 17 more, agree justification. Inasmuch Holmes' observation 'revolting' follow 'from past' hardly novel, tenacious adherence indicates me may predicated underlying policies unconnected problems women's suffrage capacity sue. 'definitive answer' posed found breezy aphorism collected papers '(g)eneral propositions decide concrete cases.'5 necessary wedded fictions approve doctrine, dangers averts prosecution conviction 'conspiracies' never included statute. A wife, virtue intimate life she shares husband, might easily perform acts technically sufficient involve him, arm'slength agreement typical crime. mental quirk attitude 'unnourished sense' husbands wives subjected risk, possibility permitted endanger confidentiality marriage relationship. While easy enough ridicule Hawkins' Crown6 metaphysical point view, concept 'oneness' married couple abiding belief communion their actions always regarded marriage. 19 By inroads name enforcement afforded relationship, continues path charted recent where held that, circumstances testify over objection. One need waver virile insist things also importance, accommodate itself. solidarity confidential relationship dogmatically asserts protect hence 'enthrone(s) law.' am persuaded people centuries can lightly dismissed. event, power depose belongs Congress, dissent. Mawji Reginam, 41 Crim.App.R. 69, All Eng.Rep. (1957) 385. Kowbel Queen, 110 Can.Crim.Cas. 47 (1954); King McKechie (1926) N.Z.L.R. 1. 'There judgments Canada, dealing particular matter, think settled since centuries, conspire indictable offence. These during six slow hesitations few writers justify brush aside considered existing *. very amended intervention, not, applied.' 47, 52 (1954). (Taschereau, J.) 'Had intention Parliament abolish defence concerned expected plain words expressly used find nothing statute) warrant imputing taking *.' Id., at 54—55. (Cartwright, Lochner People State York, 198 45, 76, 25 539, 547, 49 937 (dissenting opinion). Hawkins, Crown (4th 1762), 192.

Classification Label: 0