Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

from for

§ 1819. From England, in this connection, we can receive no light. The British government is a centralization. Wherever the British flag waves, there the British Analogies crown nominally, and the British parliament actually, eign jurisprudence. are supreme. Our government, on the other hand, is a confederation of sovereign States; a confederation, it is true, that cedes to the federal government supremacy within an orbit specifically assigned to it, but which leaves all other powers undisturbed to the States. The late civil war settled that no State has a right to withdraw from this confederation, and it led to an amendment to the Constitution conferring on the federal government certain additional powers tending to the securer extension of citizenship to the negro race. But the late civil war left untouched those important clauses of the Constitution which reserve to the several States the residuum of sovereignty after the powers of the general government are carved out. Hence it is that we are to look to the federal systems of Europe for analogies in respect to this branch of the law. Of these systems the old Germanic Empire; the German Bund of 1830; the North German Confederation; the North German Empire; the Swiss Eidgenossenschaft, present illustrations of greater or less pertinency. But whether, in confederate systems, the bonds of confederacy are loose or close, the result in this respect is the same. Treason to the sovereign of the particular State is, as an offence, as definite and as readily cognizable as is treason to the sovereign of the confederation. By the famous resolution of August 18, 1836, the North German Bund resolved that attempted subversions of its Constitution should be regarded as treason; though it was conceded on all sides that treason to the particular States making up that confederation remained a substantive offence; and no one, in the subsequent prosecutions for treason instituted by Prussia, thought of setting up as a defence that treason to the particular State was absorbed in treason to the federal head. Far closer is the fusion of the States composing the present North German Confederacy; but treasons to the sovereigns of Prussia and of Saxony, so far as such treason is aimed at them in their capacities as heads of their particular States, continue to be cognizable in the Prussian and Saxon courts. Each of the Swiss cantons is accustomed to prosecute for political crimes aimed at it individually; yet the Swiss cantons have enacted that it is also treason to aim at the

subversion of the Eidgenossenschaft or Confederate League. The principle is as follows: Wherever a particular State in a confederacy has reserved to it the right of prosecuting, in its own name and as against its own peace and dignity, offences committed within its borders; there it has the juridical right to maintain its integrity by prosecuting for treason subjects who attack its political existence. If we apply this test, there can be no question that the right to prosecute for treason against themselves is reserved to the particular States of the American Union. Each of these, not only by its own constitution and laws, but in accordance with repeated recognitions of the federal Supreme Court, prosecutes, as against its own peace and dignity, all offences except those aimed specifically at the delegated powers of the federal government.

§ 1820. The law as to pleading and evidence in cases of treason has been stated in the sections relating to treason against the United States. Whether there may be accessaries in such cases has been already discussed.1

1 Supra, §§ 224, 1792.

586

[blocks in formation]

Such ob

struction

§ 1822. WHOEVER, whether intentionally or negligently, obstructs the due transmission or delivery of the mail, is indictable under the federal statute. And indirect as well as direct obstruction is indictable under the statute, though indictable it is necessary to constitute the offence that the mail should be in transitu. It is no defence that the obstruction was in service of a warrant in a civil suit in a State court."

1 Under the Revised Statutes the following postal offences are made indictable :

Inclosing letters with printed mat. ter, § 3887.

Detaining letters, § 3890.
Destroying letters, etc., § 3892.
Posting obscene book, etc., § 3893.
Counterfeiting stamps, etc., § 5413.
Embezzling letter, §§ 5467-8 et seq.,

5471.

Robbing carrier, § 5472.

by statute.

As to breaking into post-office, see U. S. v. Campbell, 9 Sawy. 20.

2 U. S. v. Claypool, 14 Fed. Rep. 127; U. S. v. Kane, 19 Ibid. 42; 9 Saw. 614. 9 U. S. v. Clark, 13 Philad. 476; U. S. v. McCracken, 3 Hughes, 544; U. S. v. Barney, Ibid. 545.

4 U. S. v. McCracken, supra.

U. S. v. Harvey, 1 Brunf. (U. S.) 540.

Robbery of the mail is where a mail carrier is robbed by force.

II. ROBBERY OF MAIL.

§ 1823. The offence of robbing the mail, under the federal statute, is constituted by robbing the carrier of the mail, or other person intrusted therewith, by stopping him on the highway, and demanding the surrender of the mail, and at the same time showing weapons calculated to take his life, or by otherwise putting him in fear of his life, and obtaining possession of the mail, or portions thereof, by the means aforesaid, against the will of the carrier.2

§ 1824. All persons present at the commission of the robbery, consenting thereto, aiding, assisting, or abetting therein, or doing any act which is a constituent of the offence, are principals.3

All concerned are principals.

Rev. Stat. § 5472.

2 U. S. v. Hare, 2 Wheeler C. C. 300; 1 Cr. C. C. 82. The same law was recognized by Washington, J., in U. S. v. Wood, 3 Wash. C. C. 440, and in U. S. v. Bernard, Trenton, 1819. See, also, U. S. v. Aminhisor, 2 Wheeler C. C. xliv; U. S. v. Wood, 1 Brunf. (U. S.) 456.

The defendant was indicted under the act of Congress for advising, procuring, and assisting a mail carrier to rob the mail; and was found guilty. Upon this finding, the judges of the Circuit Court of North Carolina were divided in opinion on the question whether an indictment, founded on the statute for advising, etc., a mail carrier to rob the mail, ought to set forth or aver that the said carrier did, in fact, commit the offence of robbing the mail. The answer to this, it was said by the Supreme Court, as an abstract proposition, "must be in the affirmative. But if the question intended to be put is, whether there must be a distinctive substantive averment of that fact, it is not necessary. The indictment, in this case, suffi

ciently sets out that the offence has been committed by the mail carrier." U. S. v. Mills, 7 Peters, 138.

Upon an indictment for robbing the mail, and putting the person having the custody of it in jeopardy, under the 19th section of the Act of April 30, 1810, c. 262, a sword, etc., in the hands of the robber, by terror of which the robbery is effected, is, within the act, a dangerous weapon, putting the life in jeopardy; though it be not drawn or pointed at the carrier. So a pistol in his hands, by means of which the robbery is effected, is a dangerous weapon; and it is not necessary to prove that it was charged; it is presumed to be so until the contrary is proved. U. S. v. Wood, 3 Wash. C. C. 440.

It is not necessary to a conviction, under the 22d section of the act above given, that the carrier of the mail should have taken the oath prescribed by the second section of the Act of 1825, or that the whole mail be taken. U. S. v. Wilson, 1 Bald. C. C. 78. Ibid.

§ 1825. The word "rob," in the statute, is used in the common law sense.1

§ 1826. "Jeopardy," as used in the statute, means a well-grounded apprehension of danger to life, in case of refusal to yield to threats of violence.2

§ 1826 a. Under the statute making the unlawful opening or detention of mail matter indictable, is included merchandise transmitted by mail.3

[blocks in formation]

III. EMBEZZLEMENT FROM MAIL.

must have

§ 1827. To constitute the offence of embezzlement from the mail, the letter must have been obtained from the post-office, or from a letter carrier; after a voluntary delivery to a Letter third person, the letter is no longer under the protection been obof the laws of the United States; and the act of fraudulently obtaining it from such third person is not punishable under the statute. Whether the intent necessary to embezzlement existed, the jury must determine from the evidence."

tained from post-office.

Where a letter is delivered to a private messenger, the letter cannot be charged to have been "posted" or "mailed." Hence, an errand boy sent by his master for letters, and embezzling one after receiving it, cannot be convicted under the statute." As a general rule, the detention of a letter which came law

1 Ibid. Ibid.

U. S. v. Blackman, 17 Fed. Rep.

837; 5 McCr. 438.

funds see U. S. v. Gilbert, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 54.

6 U. S. v. Parsons, 2 Blatch. 104; U. S. v. Mulvaney, 4 Parker C. R. 164.

See Rev. St. §§ 4046, 5467-8, That the offence is not felony, see U.S. 5473-7. v. Lancaster, 2 McLean, 431; supra, §§ 183, 220.

As to meaning of "secrete" in statute, see R. v. Sharpe, 1 Moody, 125; R. v. Wynn, 1 Den. C. C. 365; T. & M. 32; 2 C. & K. 859; State v. Williams, 30 Me. 484; and see supra, § 896. That taking from a postal car is within the statute, see U. S. v. Falkenheimer, 21 Fed. Rep. 624.

6 U. S. v. Sander, 6 McLean, 598; U. S. v. Mills, 7 Peters, 138. As to embezzlement generally see supra, §§ 1009 et seq.

1 U. S. v. Driscoll, 1 Low. 303; U. S. v. Parsons, 2 Blatch. 104; U. S. v. Sander, 6 McLean, 598. See U. S. v.

As to embezzlement of money order Pond, 2 Curtis C. C. 265.

« AnteriorContinuar »