sist in making, or cause to be made, a false entry in any record, book, or account, required by law or the rules or regulations of the Post-office Department to be kept in respect of the business or operations of any post-office or other branch of the postal service, for the purpose of fraudulently increasing his compensation or the compensation of the postmaster or any employee in a post-office; or whoever, being a postmaster or other person employed in any postoffice or station thereof, shall induce, or attempt to induce, for the purpose of increasing the emoluments or compensation of his office, any person to deposit mail matter in, or forward in any manner for mailing at, the office where such postmaster or other person is employed, knowing such matter to be properly mailable at another post-office, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Few cases under this criminal statute have been reported. United States vs. Snyder, page 554 in the 14 Federal, and the same case in the 8 Federal, at page 805, do not contain any suggestions that will be of much benefit to the practitioner. This case simply determines that one may aid and abet a postmaster in committing the offense, and that evidence of other acts and doings of a kindred character are admissible to illustrate or establish the intent or motive in the particular act charged and being tried, which is, of cousre, the recognized doctrine in all criminal cases.

In United States vs. Wilson, 144 U. S., 24, affirmed in the 26 Court of Claims, 186, and 27 Court of Claims, 565, it was held that a postmaster was entitled to his salary under a designation by the Postmaster General, even though he was not commissioned by the President until some months thereafter.

§ 65. Civil Remedy.-The following cases relate to that portion of the old statute, 20 St. L., 141, which relates to the civil feature in which the government is interested in the way of fixing the compensation, withholding the same, and recovering the same. A Postmaster General having allowed the commissions, he cannot recover the same without due process of law. United States vs. Case, 49 Federal, 270; United States vs. Hutcheson, 39 Federal, 540; United States vs. Miller, 8 Utah, 29.

The Postmaster General may determine, under the arbitrary power given him, what is right and reasonable in the

matter of compensation, when the false return has been made. United States vs. Joedicke, 73 Federal, 100. A certified copy of an order of the Postmaster General to recover money against a postmaster for false returns, is prima facie evidence of the fact of such falseness. United States vs. Dumas, 149 U. S., 283; Joedicke vs. U. S., 85 Federal, 372; U. S. vs. Carlovitz, 80 Federal, 852; U. S. vs. Case, 49 Federal, 270; U. S. vs. McCoy, 193 U. S., 599.

§ 66. Collection of Unlawful Postage. Closely akin to the foregoing section, and for the protection of the public, both in the way of extortion and to insure uniform service, is Section 207 of the new Code, which reads as follows:

"Whoever, being a postmaster or other person authorized to receive the postage of mail matter, shall fraudulently demand or receive any rate of postage or gratuity or reward other than is provided by law for the postage of such mail matter, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

It is a practical re-enactment of the old Section 3899, with the exception that the new section increases the punishment by adding the imprisonment feature. It is also more wholesale in its terms, since it uses the word "mail matter" while the old section used the word "letters."

§ 67. Unlawful Pledging or Sale of Stamps.-To further guarantee uniformity in the service and one price to all, and to conserve the government property and prevent its use by its officials, and to restrict the salary of the Postmaster or other person employed in the post-office within the limits of that fixed by law, Congress passed old Section 3920 of the Revised Statutes, and later an addition at page 141 of the 20 St. L., both of which acts are now included in the new Section 208, in the following words:

"Whoever, being a postmaster or other person employed in any branch of the postal service, and being intrusted with the sale or custody of postage stamps, stamped envelopes or postal cards, shall use or dispose of them in the payment of debts, or in the purchase of merchandise or other salable articles, or pledge or hypothecate the same, or sell or dispose of them except for cash; or sell or dispose of postage stamps or postal cards for any larger or less sum than the values indicated on their faces; or sell or dispose of stamped envelopes for a larger or less sum than is charged therefor by the Post

office Department for like quantities; or sell or dispose of, or cause to be sold or disposed of, postal stamps, stamped envelopes, or postal cards at any point or place outside of the delivery of the office where such postmaster or other person is employed; or induce or attempt to induce, for the purpose of increasing the emoluments or compensation of such postmaster, or the emoluments or compensation of any other person employed in such post-office or any station thereof, or the allowances or facilities provided therefor, any person to purchase at such post-office or any station thereof, or from any employee of such post-office, postage stamps, stamped envelopes, or postal cards; or sell or dispose of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, or postal cards, otherwise than as provided by law or the regulations of the Post-office Department, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Under the provisions of this section, the indictment must allege, and the facts must show, that the stamps used by the postmaster had been received by him officially from the government, because the use of stamps by a postmaster procured from another source, is not prohibited by the statute, as the word "intrusted" is used with reference to the sort of stamps protected by the Act. United States vs. Williamson, 26 Fed., 690. The new section is as strong in its inhibition against the use of stamps by a postmaster in the payment of merchandise, even though he place the money value of the stamps in the till of the post-office. In United States vs. Douglas, 33 Fed., 381, the Court in charging the jury, said:

"The defendant, testifying on his own behalf, admitted that he had used stamps on several occasions in paying for merchandise and remitting money for the purpose of making change. He says that he did this not dreaming that it was wrong, and that in every instance he put the money value of the stamps so used in the till of the post-office; in fact, thus purchasing the stamps from himself. The Act of Congress forbids any disposition by a postmaster of stamps intrusted to him, except the sale of them at their face value for cash to third persons. He cannot use them in purchase of goods, or in payment of debts nor can he purchase them from himself for any such purpose. By his own admission, therefore, he has violated the law, and if you believe him, you must find him guilty on the indictment."

In Palliser vs. United States, 136 U. S., 267; 34 Law Ed., 514, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking

through Mr. Justice Gray, held that the word "cash" in the Act forbidding a postmaster to sell or dispose of postage stamps except for cash, means ready money or money in hand. A sale on credit is not a sale for cash. That case further determines that an offer to a postmaster, promising him that if he would put postage stamps on certain circulars and send them at the rate of fifty to one hundred, that the writer would remit to him the price of the stamps, that such an offer was the tender of a contract for the payment of money to induce the postmaster to sell stamps on credit, in violation of his lawful duty, and that an offer of a contract to pay money to a postmaster for an unlawful sale by him of postage stamps on credit is not the less within the statute, (the Court was then considering Section 5451 of the old Revised Statutes), because his commission on the sale would be no greater than upon a lawful sale for cash. In United States vs. Walter Scott Stamp Company, 87 Federal, 721, Circuit Judge Lacombe, in passing upon a civil action of replevin brought by the government against a concern that had in its possession a great number of stamps, decided that the possession of stamps by persons outside of and unconnected with the Post-office Department is not presumptively unlawful.

§ 67a. Receiving Stolen Property, Etc.-See Section 74-Section 48 of the Act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stats., 1098, page 1603, 1911 Supp. Compiled Statutes, provides: "Whoever shall receive, conceal, or aid in concealing or shall have or retain in his possession with intent to convert to his own use or gain any money, property, record, voucher, or valuable thing whatever of the moneys, goods, chattels, records or property of the United States which has theretofore been embezzled, stolen or purloined by any other person, knowing the same to have been so embezzled, stolen or purloined, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and such person may be tried either before or after the conviction of the principal offender."

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, speaking through Judge McPherson, in Naftzger vs. U. S., 200 Fed. 497, in reversing a conviction under this statute, determined that inasmuch as an allegation in the indictment that the

stamps had been stolen from the United States was necessary to give a United States court jurisdiction, there must be some substantial proof offered to establish this fact, and that hearsay testimony of post-office inspectors would not meet the required measure. The allegation in that case on this particular point was that the stamps had been stolen from post-offices in Kansas, the exact names of which were to the grand jurors unknown, and the Court held that this allegation having been made, it was necessary to prove it.

It was further held in this case that a conviction upon extrajudicial confession or acts or declarations of a person will not be sustained without corroborative proof that the property was in fact stolen.

It is improper to admit testimony of post-office inspectors that a number of post-offices had been burglarized, for the purpose of showing the theft of postage stamps, even though such testimony is limited by the Court's charge to the issue of defendant's knowledge and the case of Grayson vs. Lynch, 163 U. S., 468, does not state a rule of criminal law. Naftzger vs. U. S., 200 Federal, 500.

§ 68. Failure to Account for Postage and to Cancel Stamps. Section 209 of the new Code, reading as follows:

"Whoever, being a postmaster or other person engaged in the postal service, shall collect and fail to account for the postage due upon any article of mail matter which he may deliver, without having previously affixed and canceled the special stamp provided by law, or shall fail to affix such stamp, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars,"

relates evidently only to what is commonly known as special or due postage. It was originally a part of the Act of March 3, 1879, as shown at page 249 of the First Volume of the Supplement, and was Section 27 of that Act.

§ 69. Issuing Money Order Without Payment.Section 210 of the new Code reads as follows:

"Whoever, being a postmaster or other person employed in any branch of the postal service, shall issue a money order without having previously received the money therefor, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars."

The only difference between it and 4030 of the Revised Statutes, which was directed at the same offense, is that the