United States v. Birdsall

• Decision Date: 18 August 1913
• Docket Number: 4,164-4,167.
• Citation: 206 F. 818
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BIRDSALL. SAME v. BRENTS. SAME v. VAN WERT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

206 F. 818

UNITED STATES v. BIRDSALL. SAME v. BRENTS. SAME v. VAN WERT.

Nos. 4,164-4,167.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

August 18, 1913

Harry J. Bone, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan.

Charles W. Mullan and H. B. Boies, both of Waterloo, Iowa, for defendant Birdsall.

S. C Huber, of Tama, Iowa, for defendants Brents and Van Wert.

REED District Judge.

At a former term of this court separate indictments were found and returned against the several defendants. Those against Thomas E. Brents and Everett E. Van Wert charged them, respectively with having accepted a bribe from the defendant Birdsall, in violation of section 117 of the Penal Code (Act March 4 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1109 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p 1623)); and those against the defendant Birdsall with having given to said Brents and Van Wert, respectively, a bribe in violation of section 39 of the Penal Code. To these indictments each defendant separately demurred, upon the ground that the indictment against him charged no offense. These demurrers were sustained, and the indictments dismissed. United States v. Van Wert (D.C.) 195 F. 974; United States v. Brents and United States v. Birdsall (D.C.) 195 F. 980. And reference is made to the opinion in those cases for the charge in each of the indictments, the several demurrers thereto, and the grounds of the decision.

After the ruling upon the demurrers to those indictments, the government resubmitted to another grand jury the same matters charged therein, and procured a new indictment against each of the defendants for the same alleged offense charged in the former indictment against him. To the new indictments each defendant respectively demurs upon the same ground that he demurred to the former indictment against him. The new or second indictments against Brents and Van Wert are identical, except in the name of the defendants and the amount of the bribe alleged to have been received by each. Omitting the formal parts, that against Brents charges:

'That on the 30th day of April in the year 1910, and for more than a year next prior thereto, and during all the dates and times hereinafter mentioned and set forth, in said district and within the jurisdiction of said court, Thomas E. Brents was then and there a person acting for and in behalf of the United States in an official capacity, to wit, a special officer for the suppression of the liquor traffic with and among Indians, under and by virtue of the authority of a department of the government, to wit, the Department of the Interior of the United States; the said Thomas E. Brents having been theretofore duly and legally appointed such special officer by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, under and by virtue of the authority of the Secretary of the Interior.

'That in the performance of his official functions as such special officer, as provided by the rules and regulations and established usages and practices and requirements of the said Department of the Interior, the said Thomas E. Brents was then and there charged with the duty, and called upon and required, among other things, to make recommendations to his said superior officer, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, either directly or through other subordinates of the said Commissioner of Indian Affairs, concerning all matters connected with the conviction and punishment of persons who should unlawfully sell liquor to Indians, or otherwise violate the laws of the United States in reference to the liquor traffic affecting the Indians, and to inform and advise the said Commissioner of Indian Affairs, either directly or through other subordinates of said Commissioner when called on so to do, in all such matters and in all matters relating thereto, and particularly, when called on so to do, to inform the said Commissioner whether or not the effective suppression of the liquor traffic with and among Indians would be furthered or prejudiced by executive or judicial clemency in any particular case, and in all the said matters and in all matters relating thereto to act without partiality or favor and truthfully, and without violating or betraying the confidence and trust reposed in him, the said Thomas E. Brents.

'That at the April term of said court in the year 1909, in and for said district, the following named persons, to wit (naming them), were each and all indicted for unlawfully selling liquor to Indians, in violation of laws of the United States, and each and all of said persons above named and indicted as aforesaid entered a plea of guilty at the December term in the year 1909 of said court to the offenses charged in said indictment, and each of said persons who were indicted and entered a plea of guilty as aforesaid were sentenced by said court at the

...