the rule by express provision of the statute.67 Even under such a statute, however, the question is one of legislative intention, and the word persons will be held not to include corporations where it appears from a construction of the statute that the legislature did not so intend.68 § 141. Misfeasance. In several of the earlier cases a distinction was made, with respect to the criminal responsibility of corporations, between nonfeasance and misfeasance, and, while it was conceded that an indictment would lie for nonfeasance, it was held that it would not lie for misfeasance, as for a nuisance in erecting a dam across a navigable river,69 or in obstructing a highway by digging it up and placing stones and dirt therein.70 And it has also been Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915 D 515. South Dakota. State v. Security Bank of Clark, 2 S. D. 538, 51 N. W. 337. See also Palatka & I. R. Co. v. State, 23 Fla. 546, 3 So. 158, 11 Am. St. Rep. 395. A corporation may be prosecuted for violating a statute applying to contractors and subcontractors. United States v. John Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304. The word "whoever" in the Federal Espionage Act includes corporations. United States v. American Socialist Society, 260 Fed. 885. 67 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: United States. United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50, 54 L. Ed. 87, 30 Sup. Ct. 15. Delaware. State v. Delaware Saengerbund, 5 Boyce 162, 91 Atl. 290, aff'd 95 Atl. 1078. Georgia. Southern Exp. Co. V. State, 1 Ga. App. 700, 58 S. E. 67. Iowa. Stewart v. Waterloo Turn Verein, 71 Iowa 226, 32 N. W. 275, 60 Am. Rep. 768. Kansas. State V. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915 D 515. Massachusetts. Com. v. Graustein & Co., 209 Mass. 38, 95 N. E. 97. North Carolina. State v. Salisbury Ice & Fuel Co., 166 N. C. 366, 81 S. E. 737, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 216, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 456. Tennessee. Standard Oil Co. V. State, 117 Tenn. 618, 100 S. W. 705, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015. West Virginia. State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362, 36 Am. Rep. 803. 68 Cumberland & Oxford Canal Co. v. Portland, 56 Me. 77; Standard Oil Co. v. State, 117 Tenn. 618, 100 S. W. 705, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015. See also Com. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 S. W. 459, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344; and People v. Rochester Railway & Light Co., 195 N. Y. 102, 88 N. E. 22, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 998, 133 Am. St. Rep. 770, 16 Ann. Cas. 837, holding that statutes relative to homicide did not apply to corporations. 69 5 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 3368; State v. Great Works Milling & Manufacturing Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38. Contra, State v. City of Portland, 74 Me. 268, 43 Am. Rep. 586. 70 State v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 23 Ind. 362; Com. v. Swift Run Gap Turnpike Co., 2 Va. Cas. 362. said that corporations are not indictable for misfeasances unless they assume the shape of nuisances.71 This view, however, has been almost universally repudiated, and it may now be regarded as settled that a corporation may be indicted for misfeasance as well as for nonfeasance.72 Thus, indictments have been sustained against railroad companies for obstructing a highway by positive acts,78 for emitting smoke and gases from locomotive engines in unnecessary quantities, 74 71 Delaware Division Canal Co. v. Com., 60 Pa. St. 367, 100 Am. Dec. 570. 725 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 3368. See also the following decisions: United States. New York Cent. & H. River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304; United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., 149 Fed. 823; United States v. John Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304. Florida. Palatka & I. R. Ry. Co. v. State, 23 Fla. 546, 3 So. 158, 11 Am. St. Rep. 395. Kansas. State V. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915 D 515. Kentucky. Com. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 S. W. 459, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344; Com. v. Pulaski County Agricultural & Mechanical Ass'n, 92 Ky. 197, 17 S. W. 442, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 468; Com. v. Paducah, 6 Ky. L. Rep. (Abst.) 292. Maine. State v. City of Portland, 74 Me. 268, 43 Am. Rep. 586. Massachusetts. Com. v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray 339. New Jersey. State v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 90 N. J. L. 372, 103 Atl. 685; State v. Passaic County Agr. Soc., 54 N. J. L. 260, 23 Atl. 680; State v. Morris & E. R. Co., 23 N. J. L. 360. New York. People v. Rochester Railway & Light Co., 195 N. Y. 102, 88 N. E. 22, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 998, 133 Am. St. Rep. 770, 16 Ann. Cas. 837. Tennessee. State v. Atchison, 3 Lea 729, 31 Am. Rep. 663. West Virginia. State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362, 26 Am. Rep. 803. England. Reg. v. Great North of England R. Co., 9 Q. B. 315. A corporation may commit those crimes which consist in purposely doing a thing prohibited by statute. New York Cent. & H. River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304. 73 By cutting through a highway. Reg. v. Great North of England R. Co., 9 Q. B. 315. By embankments and ditches. State v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 88 Iowa 689, 56 N. W. 400. By building a crossing in such a way as to obstruct a highway. Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 90 Pa. St. 300. By building station houses, depots, or other structures thereon. State v. Morris & E. R. Co., 23 N. J. L. 360; State v. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 103. By permitting engines and cars to remain on the track at highway intersections. Com. v. New York Cent. & H. River R. Co., 206 Mass. 417, 92 N. E. 766, 19 Ann. Cas. 529; State v. Western North Carolina R. Co., 95 N. C. 602. 74 State v. Erie R. Co., 84 N. J. L. 661, 87 Atl. 141, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 117, rev'g 83 N. J. L. 231, 84 Atl. 698; State v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 84 N. J. L. 550, 87 Atl. 86. for granting rebates in violation of the federal statutes,75 and for heating cars in a manner prohibited by law.76 Indictments have also been sustained against corporations for contempt,77 for creating and maintaining nuisances, 78 for keeping a disorderly house,79 for permitting gaming on their premises,80 for violating the liquor laws,81 for taking usury,82 for publishing a libel,83 for violation of the Sunday laws,84 for peddling by an agent without a license,85 for running an auto bus without a permit,86 for defrauding the revenue,87 for violating a statute regulating hours of labor,88 or 75 New York Cent. & H. River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304. 76 People v. Clark, 14 N. Y. Supp. 642. 77 Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. E. 445, 44 L. R. A. 159, 70 Am. St. Rep. 280. For violating an injunction. Franklin Union No. 4 v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N. E. 176, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. 248. 78 Acme Fertilizer Co. v. State, 34 Ind. App. 346, 72 N. E. 1037, 107 Am. St. Rep. 190; Com. v. Paducah, 6 Ky. L. Rep. (Abst.) 292; State v. Portland, 74 Me. 268, 43 Am. Rep. 586; People v. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735, 9 L. R. A. 722. By building a bridge across a navigable river. Com. v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray (Mass.) 339. In Rex v. Medley, 6 C. & P. 292, an indictment was sustained against a gas company for nuisance in so conducting its works as to convey large quantities of noisome liquids, arising from the manufacture of gas, into the river Thames, whereby the water was polluted, and the fish therein were destroyed. 79 State v. Passaic County Agr. Soc., 54 N. J. L. 260, 23 Atl. 680. 80 Com. v. Pulaski County Agricultural & Mechanical Ass'n, 92 Ky. 197, 17 S. W. 442, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 468. Compare State v. Sullivan County Agr. Soc., 14 Ind. App. 369, 42 N. E. 963. 81 United States v. Ames Mercantile Co., 2 Alaska 74; Rose v. State, 4 Ga. App. 588, 62 S. E. 117; Southern Exp. Co. v. State, 1 Ga. App. 700, 58 S. E. 67; Stewart v. Waterloo Turn Verein, 71 Iowa 226, 32 N. W. 275, 60 Am. Rep. 768; State v. Hotel McCreery Co., 68 W. Va. 130, 69 S. E. 472, Ann. Cas. 1912 A 966. 82 State v. Security Bank of Clark, 2 S. D. 538, 51 N. W. 337. 83 State v. Atchison, 3 Lea (71 Tenn.) 729, 31 Am. Rep. 663. And see Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. E. 445, 44 L. R. A. 159, 70 Am. St. Rep. 280. 84 Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Com., 93 Va. 749, 24 S. E. 837, 34 L. R. A. 105, 57 Am. St. Rep. 827; State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362, 36 Am. Rep. 803. 85 Standard Oil Co. v. Com., 107 Ky. 606, 55 S. W. 8; Crall & Ostrander v. Com., 103 Va. 855, 49 S. E. 638. 86 See State v. Ferry Line Auto Bus Co., 93 Wash. 614, 161 Pac. 467. 87 United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 14,509. 88 United States v. John Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304. the employment of minors,89 or requiring employers to provide wash rooms for their employees, 90 for violating the federal statutes relative to the branding and sale of oleomargarine,91 and the Federal Espionage Act,92 for sending obscene matter through the mails,93 for failure to disclose the net weight of butter sold in a package weighing less than a pound,94 for cutting down timber and obstructing a river, in violation of a statute,95 and for violating a statute making it a criminal offense for corporations to practice law.96 § 142. Offenses involving evil intent. It has been held by some courts that a corporation cannot be indicted for an offense involving the element of malice or evil intent.97 But there are numerous holdings to the contrary, and the tendency of the later cases especially is to hold the corporation liable where its officers capable of voicing its will have the necessary knowledge and intent.98 So an indictment 89 Prohibiting the employment of children under a certain age in certain kinds of work. Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 Pac. 924, 105 Am. St. Rep. 74. 90 People v. Saline County Coal Co., 206 Ill. App. 266. 91 United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50, 54 L. Ed. 87, 30 Sup. Ct. 15. A corporation may be convicted under a statute making it an offense for any person engaged in the business of manufacturing oleomargarine to defraud or attempt to defraud the United States of the tax thereon. United States v. Orr, 223 Fed. 222. 92 By publishing a pamphlet tending to cause insubordination in the army and to obstruct enlistments. United States v. Nearing, 252 Fed. 223. 93 See § 1477, infra. 94 State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915 D 515. 95 State v. White Oak River Corp., 111 N. C. 661, 16 S. E. 331. 96 See People v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 227 N. Y. 366, 125 N. E. 666, rev'g 180 App. Div. 648, 168 N. Y. Supp. 278. 975 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 3369. See also the following decisions: Kentucky. Com. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 152 Ky. 320, 153 S. W. 459, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344; Com. v. Paducah, 6 Ky. L. Rep. (Abst.) 292. Maine. Cumberland & O. Canal Corp. v. Portland, 56 Me. 77. Missouri. State v. Delmar Jockey Club, 200 Mo. 34, 92 S. W. 185, 98 S. W. 539. Ohio. See Orr v. Bank of United States, 1 Ohio 36, 13 Am. Dec. 588. Oregon. State v. Ross, 55 Ore. 450, 104 Pac. 596, 106 Pac. 1022, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 613. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Punxsutawney St. Passenger Ry. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 25. And See Delaware Division Canal Co. v. Com., 60 Pa. St. 367, 100 Am. Dec. 570. Washington. State v. Metropolitan Park Dist. of Tacoma, 100 Wash. 449, 171 Pac. 254. England. Reg. v. Birmingham & for libel has been sustained against a corporation although malice is an element of that offense.99 And it has been held that a corporation may be prosecuted for violating the Federal Contract Labor Law; 1 for wilfully and unlawfully destroying buildings on premises leased by it; 2 for knowingly or fraudulently concealing its property from its trustee in bankruptcy; for knowingly sending obscene matter through the mails; for wilfully violating the federal statutes relative to the branding and sale of oleomargarine; 5 for obtaining money by false pretenses; 6 for conspiracy; 7 for violating the Federal United States. New York Cent. & H. River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304; Joplin Mercantile Co. V. United States, 213 Fed. 926, aff'd 236 U. S. 531, 59 L. Ed. 705, 35 Sup. Ct. 291; U. S. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., 149 Fed. 823. Arizona. Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States, 13 Ariz. 388, 114 Pac. 955. Massachusetts. Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. E. 445, 44 L. R. A. 159, 70 Am. St. Rep. 280. New Jersey. State v. Passaic County Agr. Soc., 54 N. J. L. 260, 23 Atl. 680. New York. People v. Rochester Railway & Light Co., 195 N. Y. 102, 88 N. E. 22, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 998, 133 Am. St. Rep. 770, 16 Ann. Cas. 837; People v. Dunbar Contracting Co., 165 App. Div. 59, 151 N. Y. Supp. 164, aff'd 215 N. Y. 416, 109 N. E. 554; People v. Star Co., 135 App. Div. 517, 120 N. Y. Supp. 498. North Carolina. State v. Salisbury Ice & Fuel Co., 166 N. C. 366, 81 S. E. 737, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 216, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 456; State v. Rowland Lumber Co., 153 N. C. 610, 60 S. E. 58. West Virginia. See State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362, 36 Am. Rep. 803. A corporation may be convicted where the only intention required is an intention to do the prohibited act. United States v. John Kelso Co., 86 Fed. 304; State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915 D 515. See also other cases cited in the following notes: 99 People v. Star Co., 135 N. Y. App. Div. 517, 120 N. Y. Supp. 498; State v. Atchison, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 729, 31 Am. Rep. 663. 1 Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States, 13 Ariz. 388, 114 Pac. 955. 2 State v. Rowland Lumber Co., 153 N. C. 610, 60 S. E. 58. 8 Kaufman v. United States, 212 Fed. 613; United States v. Young & Holland Co., 170 Fed. 110; Cohen v. United States, 157 Fed. 651. 4 United States v. New York Herald Co., 159 Fed. 296. 5 United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U. S. 50, 54 L. Ed. 87, 30 Sup. Ct. 15. 6 State v. Salisbury Ice & Fuel Co., 166 N. C. 366, 81 S. E. 737, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 216, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 456. 7 United States v. Nearing, 252 Fed. 223; United States v. Young & Holland Co., 170 Fed. 110; Cohen v. United States, 157 Fed. 651; United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., 149 Fed. 823; People v. Dunbar Contracting Co., 165 N. Y. App. Div. 59, 151 N. Y. Supp. 164, aff'd 215 N. Y. 416, 109 N. E. 554; State v. Eastern |