United States v. Keitel
Decision Date | 14 December 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 286,286 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Piff. in Err., v. F. W. KEITEL, Arie Keitel, Frank P. Fay, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 370-372 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Hoyt, Attorney General Bonaparte, and Messrs. Edwin W. Lawrence and Ernest Knaebel for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 372-374 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edwin H. Park, Frederick N. Judson, Tyson S. Dines, and John F. Green for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 375-379 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
The United States prosecutes this writ of error upon the assumption that the decision of the district court was based upon an erroneous construction of the statutes upon which the indictment was founded, and therefore, by virtue of the act of March 2, 1907, chap. 2564, 34 Stat. at L. 1246, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 209, the right ob- tained to review the decision by writ of error direct from this court.
The indictment contained two counts. Without quoting them fully, it suffices to say, for the purposes of the questions which we are called upon to decide, if we have authority to decide them, that the first count charged that the eleven defendants illegally conspired, in violation of § 5440, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3676), with certain named persons and others unknown, to illegally obtain the title of certain coal lands belonging to the United States. The conspiracy was to be effected by procuring various persons as agents to enter coal lands in their own name, ostensibly for their own benefit, but in reality for the use and benefit of the accused and a named organization; the purchases being made by the agents as above stated, not with their own money, but with money of the accused or the corporation, and under agreements to convey the title, when acquired, to the accused or to the corporation, thus enabling the accused and the corporation to obtain coal lands belonging to the United States in excess of the quantity which they were allowed by law to enter. Copious averments were made in the count as to the use of alleged false, fictitious, and fraudulent papers in making the entries in question, which papers, as filed and entries made, had for their object and purpose to deceive the land officers of the United States, so as thereby to cause them to allow the entries in the name of the agents on the supposition that the entries were for the benefit of the entrymen, and which entries they would not have had the power to allow under the law, and would not have allowed, had the truth been disclosed. The second count charged an illegal conspiracy to do acts made criminal by § 4746, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3279), in making and presenting, and causing to be made and presented, in connection with the entries of coal land, certain false, forged, fictitious, etc., affidavits and papers.
To clear the approach to the issues to be decided we bring into view the statutes which must be passed on. Section 5440, relating to conspiracies, was amended May 17, 1879 [21 Stat. at L. 4, chap. 8, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3676], by chang- ing the penalties imposed by the section as primarily enacted. As amended this section is as follows:
The text of §§ 2347, 2348, 2349, and 2350 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1440, 1441), which provide for the sale of coal lands belonging to the United States, is as follows:
Section 2351 provides for conflicting claims in designated cases, and thus concludes:
'The Commissioner of the General Land Office is authorized to issue all needful rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this and the four preceding sections.'
Section 4746 of the Revised Statutes, embraced in the title 'Pensions,' was amended by the act of July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 718, chap. 578, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3279). The section, as amended, is as follows, the amendments which the law of 1898 enacted being printed in italics:
'That every person who knowingly or wilfully makes or aids, or assists in the making, or in any wise procures the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, voucher, or paper, or writing purporting to be such, concerning any claim for pension or payment thereof, or pertaining to any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Pensions or of the Secretary of the Interior, or who knowingly or wilfully makes or causes to be made, or aids or assists in the making, or presents or causes to be presented at any pension agency any power of attorney or other paper required as a voucher in drawing a pension, which paper bears a date subsequent to that upon which it was actually signed or acknowledged by the pensioner, and every person before whom any declaration, affidavit, voucher, or other paper or writing to be used in aid of the prosecution of any claim for pension or bounty land or payment thereof purports to have been executed who shall knowingly certify that the declarant, affiant, or witness named in such declaration, affidavit, Voucher, or other paper or writing personally appeared before him and was sworn thereto or acknowledged the execution thereof, when, in fact, such declarant, affiant, or witness did not personally appear before him or was not sworn thereto or did not acknowledge the execution thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'
On behalf of the various defendants motions to quash the indictment were filed, which the court granted. The grounds of demurrer were substantially the same, many being addressed to technical attacks upon the sufficiency of the indictment; but in each of the motions the validity of the indict- ment was assailed upon the ground that neither count stated an offense within the statutes when properly understood.
The court, in the reasons given by it for granting the motions to quash, substantially held as follows:
1st. That the first count related exclusively to cash entries of coal lands under § 2347, Rev. Stat. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jelke v. United States
... ... the objections made by the plaintiffs in error: See ... United States v. Moore (C.C.) 173 F. 122; ... Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 28 ... Sup.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Dealy v. United States, ... 152 U.S. 539, 14 Sup.Ct. 680, 38 L.Ed. 545; United States ... v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370, 29 Sup.Ct. 123, 53 L.Ed. 230; ... United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 35 Sup.Ct ... 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; United States v. Hirsch, 100 ... U.S. 33, 25 L.Ed. 539; Curley v. United States, 130 ... F. 1, 64 C.C.A. 369; United States v. Gooding, 12 ... Wheat. 460, 6 ... ...
-
Nally v. United States Gray v. United States
...any common-law meaning of the word "defraud" in enacting § 371. See ante, at 358—359, n. 8, citing United States v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370, 393, 29 S.Ct. 123, 130, 53 L.Ed. 230 (1908). But we have also rejected the argument that the common-law meaning of the term "defraud" confines the scope ......
-
Screws v. United States
...645, 646, 71 L.Ed. 1095; Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277, 278, 35 S.Ct. 383, 384, 59 L.Ed. 573; United States v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370, 393-395, 29 S.Ct. 123, 130, 131, 53 L.Ed. 230. 32 I think all this would be implied if 'willfully' had not been added to Section 20 by amendment. The a......
-
Kennedy v. Lonabaugh
... ... ( U. S. v. Trinidad C. & C. Co., 137 U.S. 160; U ... S. v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370; U. S. v. Allen, 180 ... F. 855; U. S. v. Portland C. & C. Co., 173 F. 566.) ... title of which was then in the United States, and interest ... capital in the development of the lands and the opening of a ... coal ... ...
-
Chapter 1 PROBLEMS IN EXAMINATION OF TITLES TO UNITED STATES OIL AND GAS LEASES
...Gower BLM 54-116. [28] United States v. Munday, 222 US 175 (1911); United States v. Forrester, 211 US 399 (1908); United States v. Keitel, 211 US 370 (1908); United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co., 137 US 160 (1890) ; United States v. Kirk, 248 Fed 30 (8th Cir 1917) ; Union Coal & Coke......