United States v. Arnulfo Chavez

Citation33 S.Ct. 595,57 L.Ed. 950,228 U.S. 525
Decision Date05 May 1913
Docket NumberNo. 863,863
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. ARNULFO CHAVEZ, alias Arnuto Chavez
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 525-527 intentionally omitted] No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

By virtue of the act of March 2, 1907 [34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564] this direct writ of error is prosecuted for the purpose of reversing the judgment below because of an alleged erroneous construction given by the court to the joint resolution of March 14, 1912 (37 Stat. at L. 630), in consequence of which the indictment in this case was quashed because stating no defense against the provisions of the joint resolution.

The charging part of the indictment is as follows:

'That heretofore, to wit: on the 3d day of May, A. D. 1912, in the city and county of El Paso, in the state of Texas, in the western district of Texas, and within the jurisdiction of this court, one Arnulfo Chavez, alias Arnuto Chavez, late of said district, did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and with intent to export the munitions of war hereinafter described from the said city of El Paso to Ciudad Juarez in Mexico, make a certain shipment of munitions of war, to wit: two thousand (2,000) Winchester cartridges of the caliber 30-30, that is to say, did make a shipment of said munitions of war from said city of El Paso and with said Ciudad Juarez in Mexico as the destination of said shipment, by transporting the same on his person from a point the exact location of which is to your grand jury unknown and hence not here given, near the intersection of North El Paso and San Francisco streets in said city of El Paso to a point, the exact location of which is to your grand jury unknown, and hence not here given, but which is near the intersection of South Stanton and Fifth streets in the said city of El Paso.'

The joint resolution is as follows:

'Section 1. That wheneyer the President shall find that in any American country conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States, and shall make proclamation thereof, it shall be unlawful to export, except under such limitations and exceptions as the President shall prescribe, any arms or munitions of war from any place in the United States to such country until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress.

'Sec. 2. That any shipment of material hereby declared unlawful after such a proclamation shall be punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.'

The proclamation of the President applying without exception or limitation the provisions of the resolution to Mexico was issued April 12, 1912. Proclamations 1912, p. 57.

Considering it to be indisputable that two act are essential to constitute export in the legal sense, a shipment from this country to a foreign country, and the landing of the goods in such foreign country, the court below held that no transgression of the prohibition of the 1st section, making it unlawful to export, could arise from the facts charged, because they alleged—giving them the most favorable view to the government—but a shipment from this country to Mexico, unconsummated by delivery in the foreign country. Coming to consider the 2d section, it was held that the act punished by that section was the exportation prohibited by the 1st section, and hence the charge of shipment without an averment of landing in the foreign country stated no offense punishable by the 2d section. The court said:

'The allegations of the indictment, as understood by the court, charge in effect that the defendant attempted to export munitions of war,—nothing more; and as the joint resolution is directed against actual exportation, and not merely the attempt to export, the acts charged against the defendant are not embraced within the prohibition. The word 'shipment,' employed in connection with the words 'material hereby declared unlawful,' can only refer, in the judgment of the court, to material shipped, exported, to the country where the disturbance exists; since it is only such material that is declared to be unlawful by the 1st section of the resolution, defining the offense.'

In common speech the shipment of goods from this to a foreign country without regard to their landing in such country is often spoken of as an export. It is true...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Hamarstrom v. M.K.T. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 d1 Abril d1 1938
    ...v. Simpson, 252 U.S. 465, 64 L. Ed. 665; United States v. Slater, 123 Fed. 115; United States v. Burch, 226 Fed. 974; United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 57 L. Ed. 950; United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U.S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 1459; United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co., 149 Fed. 486.......
  • Hamarstrom v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 4 d1 Abril d1 1938
    ... ... 832; New York Central R. Co. v ... Winfield, 244 U.S. 147; United States v ... Simpson, 252 U.S. 465, 64 L.Ed. 665; United States ... 115; United States v. Burch, ... 226 F. 974; United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, ... 57 L.Ed. 950; United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 ... ...
  • U.S. v. Huynh, 00-30151
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 30 d5 Março d5 2001
    ...in original). 10. See id. (citing, inter alia, Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 145 (1903), United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 530 (1913), and United States v. Hill, 34 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 11. At the time, 18 U.S.C. 2314 provided: "'Whosoever transports in interstate ......
  • U.S. v Huynh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 4 d5 Maio d5 2001
    ...(alterations in original). 10 See id. (citing, inter alia, Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 145 (1903), United States v. Chavez, 228 U.S. 525, 530 (1913), and United States v. Hill, 34 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 11 At the time, 18 U.S.C. § 2314 provided: "'Whosoever transports i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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