United States v. Edgar Biggs
Citation | 53 L.Ed. 305,29 S.Ct. 181,211 U.S. 507 |
Decision Date | 04 January 1909 |
Docket Number | No. 289,289 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. EDGAR M. BIGGS, Charles H. Freeman, Charles D. McPhee, and John J. McGinnity |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Hoyt, Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. Edwin W. Lawrence for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 508-510 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Clyde C. Dawson and Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 511-513 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
It is adequate to an understanding of the question which are here necessary to be decided in general terms to say that the indictment against the defendants in error charged them with conspiracy in violation of the 2d clause of § 5440, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3676), which makes it criminal to conspire to defraud the United States 'in any manner or for any purpose.' The means by which it was contemplated that the United States should be defrauded was charged in the indictment to have been the unlawful obtaining by purchase under the timber and stone act of public land of the United States in excess of the quantity authorized by law to be acquired. The timber and stone act, when originally enacted, in June, 1878, related solely to public lands within particular states. 20 Stat. at L. chap. 151, p. 89, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1545. In 1892, however, that act was amended by striking out the designation of particular states, thus causing the act to apply to 'surveyed public lands of the United States within the public-land states.' 27 Stat. at L. 348, chap. 375, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1545. As it is essential to have that act in mind we excerpt from the opinion of the court below a succinct but comprehensive and accurate statement of its provisions:
The indictment contained one count, supported by averments of fourteen overt acts.
The accused after moving to quash on the ground of the illegality of the organization of the grand jury, demurred to the indictment on a number of technical grounds, and upon the contentions that the facts stated in the indictment were insufficient to charge an offense within any statute of the United States, and that, as the indictment had not been found within three years of the commission of the acts therein alleged, the right to prosecute for the same was barred by the statute of limitations. The court held the indictment stated no offense against the United States, and, sustaining the demurrer upon that ground, discharged the accused without day. It was also held that, if the indictment was construed as embracing but one offense, the three years' bar of the statute of limitations was controlling; but that, if it were held that the indictment stated more than one offense, thus saving one of the offenses from the operation of the statute of limitations, the indictment would be void for duplicity.
The reasons which caused the court to reach the conclusions just stated were expounded in an opinion. Therein, in order to determine whether the indictment stated an offense against the United States, the court came first to construe it in the light of the provisions of the timber and stone act. In doing so the court said:
'We find that the indictment sets in where the 2d section of the timber and stone act leaves off. It charges that the purpose of the conspiracy was to
Having thus construed the indictment, it was then considered whether any offense was therein stated against the United States. In deciding that no offense was stated, it was held that, although it were conceded that the timber and stone act prohibited an entryman or applicant from making an application ostensibly in his own name, but in reality for and on behalf of another, that, if an applicant or entryman made an application in good faith, for his own exclusive use and benefit, the statute contained no prohibition, express or implied, against the right of the entryman, after his application, and before the final action thereon, to sell to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Perlstein, 7794.
...to commit that which a federal statute does not denounce as an offense against the United States. In United States v. Biggs, 211 U.S. 507, 521, 29 S.Ct. 181, 185, 53 L.Ed. 305, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that "it is unlawful under the conspiracy statute to conspire to have th......
-
Huff v. State
... ... The ... Supreme Court of the United States having decided that the ... acts of Congress are valid which ... 370, 385 [29 S.Ct. 123, 53 L.Ed ... 230]; United States v. Biggs, 211 U.S. 507, 518 [29 ... S.Ct. 181, 53 L.Ed. 305]; United States v ... ...
-
United States v. Bighorn Sheep Co.
...a timber and stone claim, after the initial application and before final proof, is not a violation of law. United States v. Biggs, 211 U. S. 507, 29 S. Ct. 181, 53 L. Ed. 305; United States v. Barber Lumber Co. (C. C.) 172 F. 948, affirmed 194 F. 24, 114 C. C. A. In view of the consideratio......
-
United States v. James Patten 10, 1911
...Ct. Rep. 396: United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 398, 53 L. ed. 230, 244, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123; United States v. Biggs, 211 U. S. 507, 518, 53 L. ed. 305, 309, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 181; United States v. Mason, 213 U. S. 115, 122, 53 L. ed. 725, 727, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 480; United States v. M......