United States v. Pacific Live Stock Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,199. |
| Citation | 192 F. 443 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PACIFIC LIVE STOCK CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Samuel Platt, U.S. Atty.
Edward F. Treadwell and W. E. F. Deal, for defendant.
The defendant, a California corporation, was indicted in this court for a violation of that act of Congress which forbids unlawful inclosure of the public domain. After entering a plea of not guilty, trial was had, and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. Defendant now moves an arrest of judgment. The act (Act Feb. 25, 1885, c. 149, Sec. 4, 23 Stat. 322 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1525)), as in force at the time of the offense, provided that any person violating any of its provisions shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined in a sum not exceeding $1,000, and imprisoned not exceeding one year. Subsequently the act was so amended (Act March 10 1908, c. 75, 35 Stat. 40 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 570)) as to declare that any person guilty of such a misdemeanor shall be fined or imprisoned, or both fined and imprisoned for each offense.
It is urged that the act as amended is an ex post facto law as against the defendant, because it was passed after the commission of the offense charged, because it imposes a punishment where none was imposed by the act under which the indictment was found and that the court in fixing the punishment must be guided by the provisions of the act as it stood when the offense was committed; that the judgment must conform strictly to the statute, and impose both fine and imprisonment, otherwise it is void; consequently, as a corporation cannot be imprisoned, no valid judgment can be entered in this case against the defendant.
I am unable to yield my assent to this reasoning. In the first section of the act 'all inclosures of any public lands * * * heretofore or to be hereafter made, erected or constructed by any person, party, association or corporation' are 'declared to be unlawful, and the maintenance, erection, construction, or control of any such inclosure is hereby forbidden and prohibited.'
The second section of the act provides for the institution of suits to restrain violations of the act, and for the destruction of such unlawful inclosures. In section 5 the President of the United States is authorized to take such measures as may be necessary to remove and destroy any such inclosures, and may employ the civil or military forces for that purpose.
When this act was passed, Congress had in mind the practice then so prevalent among Western stockmen of fencing large areas of public land, and thus excluding bona fide setters.
Whether the unlawful inclosure be erected and maintained by a natural or an artificial person, it is equally unlawful, and the mischief occasioned thereby, which the act was designed to prevent, is the same, both in degree and kind, whether the offender be a corporation or an individual.
Obviously, there are certain crimes, such as bigamy and perjury, of which a corporation cannot be guilty; but the act here forbidden is one which can be committed by a corporation, and one which corporations by the express terms of the statute itself are prohibited from doing. I cannot find in the act any intention to exempt corporations from punishment for its violation.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial