United States v. Caminata

• Decision Date: 29 March 1912
• Docket Number: 12.
• Citation: 194 F. 903
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CAMINATA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

194 F. 903

UNITED STATES v. CAMINATA.

No. 12.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 29, 1912

Jasper Yeates Brinton, Asst. U.S. Atty.

J Addison Abrams, for defendant.

J. B McPHERSON, District Judge.

The argument on behalf of the government will appear by the following summary of the excellent brief presented by the Assistant United States Attorney:

'This motion presents a question of wide importance to the government, vitally affecting the future enforcement of the Opium Act of 1909 (Act Feb. 9, 1909, 35 St. 614). By the first section of that act, it is made unlawful 'to import into the United States opium in any form or any preparation or derivative therefrom: Provided, that opium * * * other than smoking opium or opium prepared for smoking, may be imported for medicinal purposes only, under regulations.'

'By the second section it is provided 'that if any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States or assist in so doing, any opium or any preparation or derivative therefrom contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment or sale of such opium or preparation or derivative therefrom, after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law,' such person shall be deemed guilty of an offense and the opium shall be forfeited. This section further provides that whenever, on a trial for a violation of the section, 'the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such opium or preparation or derivative therefrom, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.'

'The evidence clearly showed that the opium in this case was brought within the territorial boundaries of the United States, to wit, into Delaware Bay, upon a vessel on which the defendant was steward. The inference was unavoidable that it had been thus fraudulently and knowingly brought in contrary to law by some one. It was found in defendant's possession, thus fairly raising the presumption of guilt as declared by the court to the jury. There was further direct evidence that the defendant was guilty of the crime. At the time of his arrest, defendant was within the port of Philadelphia, and thus within the jurisdiction of the state of Pennsylvania and of this court. The opium had been previously seized on the vessel by the officers of the government.

'On the above facts, defendant contends that the offense described in the act is not committed until the opium is brought on shore, and relies in support of his contention upon the celebrated case of Keck v. United States, 172 U.S. 434 (19 Sup.Ct. 254, 43 L.Ed. 505), and other cases arising under the customs laws.

'The government submits in the first instance that this contention is based on a totally false analogy and on a misconception of the true purpose and character of the opium act. This act is not a customs law designed to avoid fraud upon the revenue but is purely a prohibitory statute, absolutely forbidding the bringing into this country from abroad of an article deemed by Congress to be injurious to the health and morals of our people. The act has no relation to the customs system, and the fine distinctions which are discussed in the customs cases, relating to the time when the obligation to pay customs duties first accrues, have no bearing whatever upon a case of this character. The words 'import or bring' as used in this act, should be interpreted in their natural...