United States v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 10 May 1883 |
| Citation | 16 F. 233 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CAMPBELL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
James F. Watson, for the United States.
William Cullen Gaston, for plaintiff.
Section 5478 of the Revised Statutes provides that 'any person who shall forcibly break into, or attempt to break into, any post-office, or any building used in whole or in part as a post-office, with intent to commit therein larceny or other depredation, shall be punishable' as therein provided. On October 20, 1882, an indictment was found by the grand jury of this district charging the defendant, on December 21 1880, with forcibly breaking into a building at Oregon City in this district, 'which building was then and there used in part as a post-office of the United States, with the intent then and there, in said building, to commit the crime of larceny. ' The defendant demurs to the indictment for that it does not charge him with the commission of an act made criminal by any law of the United States, because the intent therein charged is not sufficient to make the alleged breaking a violation of any such law.
Taken literally and grammatically, the adverb 'therein,' in said section 5478, qualifies the verb 'to commit,' so that the intended larceny must be of something, either in a post-office or in a building used in whole as a post-office, or in a building used in part as such office. But this statute was enacted in pursuance of the power conferred upon congress by section 8 of article 1 of the constitution-- 'to establish post-offices and post-roads,' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution' such power.
The power to punish house-breaking generally, with or without an intent to commit larceny therein, is not conferred by these provisions of the constitution upon congress, but only so far as it may be necessary to conserve the property and operations of the post-office department.
What acts may be prohibited or made criminal in pursuance of this power can be best determined as the questions arise. But so long as the statute is open to any other construction, it will not be presumed that congress intended thereby to provide for the punishment of a house-breaking with intent to commit a larceny, that in no way affects the property of the post-office or that deposited therein, even if some part of the building broken into was then used as a post-office. Nor is it apparent upon what ground the constitutionality of such an act could be maintained.
Possibly it may be within the power of congress to punish the men 'breaking into' a building which is used in part for a post-office, for the reason that such 'breaking into' may impair the security of the portion used as a post-office, and that of the mails or other property deposited or used therein. But this statute is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. United States
... ... larceny or other depredation, shall be punished,' etc ... It has ... been, without dissent, the view of the District Courts ... administering this statute, since the considerate and logical ... opinion of Judge Deady, in United States v. Campbell ... (C.C.) 16 F. 233, that it should be interpreted as if it ... read 'with intent to commit larceny in the part of said ... building used as a post-office. ' See United States ... v. Williams (D.C.) 57 F. 201; United States v ... Yennie (D.C.) 74 F. 221; United States v. Saunders ... ...
-
Sons v. United States, Civ. No. 69-26.
...C.C.S.C.1900, 100 F. 831; United States v. Williams, D.C.S.C.1893, 57 F. 201; In re Byron, C.C.N.Y.1883, 18 F. 722; United States v. Campbell, C.C.Or.1883, 16 F. 233. By reason of the foregoing, the Motion under consideration is wholly void of merit as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Moti......
-
McNealy v. Johnston, 22959-R.
...these averments are necessary in the first count of the indictment. Sorenson v. United States, 1909, 8 Cir., 168 F. 785; United States v. Campbell, 1883, C.C., 16 F. 233; United States v. Shelton, 1900, C.C., 100 F. 831; United States v. Martin, 1905, C.C., 140 F. 256. Therefore the first c......
-
Ex parte Perkins
...to the election of state and county officers,' which is not 'amenable to federal jurisdiction.' U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 215; U.S. v. Campbell, 16 F. 233; U.S. v. Id. 223; U.S. v. Wright, Id. 112; Brown v. Munford, Id. 175; U.S. v. Cahill, 9 Fed.Rep. 80; U.S. v. Seaman, 23 F. 882; U.S. v. Nic......