Court Opinion

ID: 9454929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:04:08.432358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:22.953344
License: Public Domain

HALL, District Judge
(dissenting):
The heroin involved was “merchandise” in view of the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1401(e) which reads:
“The word ‘merchandise’ means goods, wares, and chattels of every description, and includes merchandise the importation of which is prohibited.”
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Sischo, in 1921, at 270 F. 958, in a civil case, held that opium, the importation of which was then prohibited, was not “merchandise,” but the Supreme Court, in 1922, at 262 U.S. 165, 43 S.Ct. 511, 67 L.Ed. 925, reversed and held that narcotic opium was “merchandise,” although opium was specifically dealt with in the Opium Act of 1918 which was the *1160predecessor of Title 21, U.S.C. § 174, under which the present indictment was brought, and which makes it unlawful to import opium into the United States.
Thus it seems to me that a conspiracy to violate Sec. 174 of Title 21 by the importation of heroin necessarily includes a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 545, the general conspiracy statutes concerning smuggling.
I dissent.