United States v. Munday

Decision Date06 April 1911
Docket Number1,921.
Citation186 F. 375
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MUNDAY et al.

B. D Townsend and S. R. Rush, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen.

Blaine Tucker & Hyland and Walter S. Fulton, for defendant Munday.

Kerr &amp McCord, for defendant Siegley.

Dorr &amp Hadley, for defendant Shiels.

E. C. Hughes, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

The government prosecutes the defendants by an indictment founded upon section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, charging them as criminal conspirators. A jury having been impaneled and sworn to try the case, counsel for the government made an opening statement, giving an outline of the facts which the government relies upon to sustain the charge. His statement, however, consisted of a mere reading of the indictment. After a witness had been called and sworn to testify, counsel for the defendants interposed an objection to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground, as they allege, that the indictment is insufficient to support a judgment adverse to their clients, and by argument supporting their objection they have presented the concrete question whether the conspiracy charged is criminal or innocent. In the consideration and decision of the question submitted, it will be assumed that the indictment is a fair and complete statement of the government's case; that is to say, it specifies the crime intended to be charged with definiteness and certainty, and contains a general outline of the chain of circumstances and the facts which the evidence to be offered will prove, or tend to prove.

Elements of Criminal Conspiracy.

The only crimes punishable under federal law are those defined by the laws enacted by Congress. Therefore it must be kept in mind that the prosecution in this case is for an alleged statutory crime. The elements of the crime of conspiracy under the laws of the United States are: (1) An object to be accomplished which must be (a) the commission of an offense against the United States; (b) to defraud the United States. (2) A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the object. (3) An agreement or understanding between two or more persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the scheme, or by any effectual means. (4) An overt act by one or more of the conspirators to effect the object of the conspiracy.

The Indictment Analyzed.

The indictment names the three defendants on trial and one Algernon H. Stracey as the persons implicated in the conspiracy charged. King county, in the state of Washington, and the 1st day of May, 1905, are specified as the place and time of the formation of the alleged criminal combination.

The general charge of the indictment is that the four persons named, with divers other unknown persons, did unlawfully (omitting other adjectives) combine, confederate, and agree together to defraud the United States of America of the use and possession of, and title to, large tracts of valuable coal lands then and there part of the public domain of the United States, situated within the Kayak recording district of Alaska, being contiguous tracts and parcels of coal lands collectively and commonly known as the 'Stracey group.' The indictment specifies that the lands referred to were subject to location and entry under the coal land laws of the United States applicable to Alaska and subject to the several attempted locations and entries in a subsequent part of the indictment specified, except for the unlawful, fraudulent, false, feigned, and fictitious character of said attempted locations and entries; and that the value of said lands is $10,000,000.

The indictment contains other specifications of the nature of the intended fraud, some of which, however, are comprehended within the general charge of the purpose to defraud the United States by divesting the government of its title to, and proprietary rights in, the coal lands designated, and therefore do not merit additional mention. Other specifications of fraud are to the effect that the scheme included interference with the administration of the land business of the United States by deceiving the officers and agents of the government, in order to induce them to approve the several locations and entries and issue patents conveying the title to the coal lands designated.

The gravaman of the charge is an unlawful conspiracy to obtain coal land in Alaska for the Alaska Development Company, a corporation of the state of Washington, and the Pacific Coal & Oil Company, reputed to be a corporation organized and existing under the legal authority of some foreign government, to wit, the Dominion of Canada or one of its provinces; the quantity of land so to be obtained for said corporations being in excess of the quantity which the law permits. The several tracts of coal land to be acquired pursuant to the alleged conspiracy are 40 in number, each being specifically described and identified as a coal claim bearing the name of the individual locator and claimant thereof and by a serial number and by the area thereof expressed in acres and fractions of an acre; each claim being approximately one-fourth of a section.

The plan or scheme embodying the means whereby the object of the alleged conspiracy was to be accomplished are set forth with particularity in articulated paragraphs which I have epitomized as follows: The objects and purposes of said unlawful conspiracy were to be furthered and effected by means of unlawful, fraudulent, false, feigned, and fictitious locations, notices of locations, preferential rights to purchase, applications to enter and purchase, and final entries and purchases under the coal land laws of the United States; by cunning persuasion and promises of pecuniary reward and other corrupt means persons severally qualified by law (except as stated) should be procured and induced to make the fictitious locations and fraudulent entries of said tracts of coal lands ostensibly for the exclusive use and benefit of themselves, respectively, but in truth and in fact for the use and benefit of the Alaska Development Company and the Pacific Coal & Oil Company. The possession of all of said coal lands was to be held and the use thereof enjoyed by persons ostensibly as the agents of and for the benefit of the individual claimants, respectively, but in truth and in fact as the agent of, and for the use and benefit of, said corporations. Each claimant should be induced, persuaded, and procured to support his unlawful location and fraudulent entry by affidavits regular in form but containing false representations; that each of them, respectively, had opened and improved a coal mine and expended moneys in that behalf and staked out and located a coal claim, including within its boundaries said coal mines, and had taken and held possession of said coal claims and intended to purchase from the United States under and pursuant to the coal land law applicable to Alaska the tract of land so pretended to have been located.

By said means, the officers of the United States having charge of public land matters should be deceived and induced to accept, file, and record notices of location and affidavits in the land office, and to segregate said coal lands from the public domain, and withdraw the same from public entry under any of the public land laws of the United States, and rights should thereby be acquired ostensibly for the benefit of the persons making such false affidavits, but, in fact, for the said corporations. Thereafter said coal land claimants, respectively, should hold and exercise their pretended and unlawful preferential rights to purchase said coal lands ostensibly for their own use and benefit, but in fact for the said two corporations. Thereafter said claimants should, in the form and manner provided by law, make applications to enter and purchase said coal lands ostensibly for their own use and benefit, but, in fact, for the said two corporations, and thereby the said corporations should receive and enjoy the benefits of a greater number of locations and entries of coal lands, and for a greater quantity of coal lands than allowed by law. The respective shares and interests of said Alaska Development Company and of said Pacific Coal & Oil Company in the fruits and benefits of the unlawful conspiracy were to be adjusted so that said Alaska Development Company should receive and enjoy the title, use, and value of all of said coal lands subject to a contract entered into between said two corporations prior to the transactions, and which was in full force and effect at and during all of the times mentioned, by which it was provided that, as between said corporations, the Pacific Coal & Oil Company should be entitled to take and hold possession of said coal lands, operate the mines thereon, and extract the coal therefrom, paying a royalty therefor to said Alaska Development Company, and have an option to purchase all of said coal lands within certain stated times and for certain stated prices.

Overt acts are charged, substantially, as follows: That after the formation of said unlawful conspiracy, and in pursuance of and to effect its object, Archie W. Shiels, one of the defendants, did unlawfully on specified dates cause each of the said coal claims to be surveyed by a mineral surveyor of the United States. Said survey being intended for use in applications to enter and purchase the said coal claims by the respective claimants thereof, and thereafter in further pursuance of, and to effect the object of said unlawful conspiracy, the said Shiels did knowingly on specified dates file and cause to be filed in the office of the Surveyor General of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jelke v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 2, 1918
    ... ... United States, 156 U.S. 195, 15 ... Sup.Ct. 325, 39 L.Ed. 390; United States v. Carll, ... 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United States v. Hess, ... 124 U.S. 483, 8 Sup.Ct. 571, 31 L.Ed. 516; United States ... v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; United ... States v. Munday (C.C.) 186 F. 375; United States v ... Munday, 222 U.S. 175, 32 Sup.Ct. 53, 56 L.Ed. 149 ... The ... general conclusions deducible from these cases are: (a) The ... conspiracy statute creates and defines an independent crime, ... and an offense against the statute is committed ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT