United States v. Smith United States v. Dailey, s. 20 and 162
| Decision Date | 07 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 20 and 162,s. 20 and 162 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SMITH. UNITED STATES v. DAILEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Bernard Margolius, Washington, D.C., for Arnold L. Dailey.
No appearance for Louise Virginia Smith.
Appellee Smith (No. 20) was indicted October 2, 1950, for having on or about July 1, 1947, forged the name of the payee on a check drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.
Appellee Dailey (No. 162) was indicted September 29, 1950, for having on or about March 14, 1947, knowingly made a false statement in connection with his application for Farmers Home Administration services.
In each case the crime charged was committed more than three years before the indictment was returned and therefore would be barred by the three-year statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3282, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282, unless that statute has been tolled. The prosecution argued that it was tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act of 1942, as amended, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 590a. The District Court in each case disagreed with the prosecution and dismissed the indictment. The cases are here on appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731.
The Act derives from the Act of August 24, 1942, which suspended the running of the statute of limitations applicable to offenses involving frauds against the United States until June 30, 1945, or until such earlier time as the Congress by concurrent resolution, or the President, may designate. 56 Stat. 747. That Act was amended by the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 649, 667, to provide among other things that the term of suspension of the statute of limitations was 'until three years after the termination of hostilities in the present war as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress.' Offenses in connection with the negotiation, award, termination, or settlement of contracts were included by that Act. And offenses in connection with the care, handling, and disposal of property were added by the Surplus Property Act of 1944. 58 Stat. 765, 781. At the time of the alleged offenses the Act read in relevant part: 1 'The running of any existing statute of limitations applicable to any offense against the laws of the United States (1) involving defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States or any agency thereof whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner, * * * shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities in the present war as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress.'
The hostilities of World War II were declared terminated December 31, 1946, by Presidential Proclamation No. 2714, 61 Stat. (Pt. 2) 1048—1049; 12 Fed.Reg. 1, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 601 note. It is therefore clear that if the designated offenses were committed within the three-year period prior to the date of the Act or between the date of the Act and December 31, 1946, the statute of limitations would be suspended. The question is whether the Act is likewise applicable to offenses committed after December 31, 1946, the date of the proclamation of termination of hostilities.
The argument of the prosecution is that the language of the Act makes no distinction between offenses committed before and offenses committed after the termination of hostilities, the emphasis of the Act being on the suspension of the 'running' of the statutes of limitations. It is contended that the extension of the Act to offenses prescribed by the Contract Settlement Act and the Surplus Property Act—offenses of the type likely to be committed during the post-hostilities period—is persuasive indication that Congress made the Act operative after, as well as before, the termination of hostilities.
We take the contrary view. We conclude that the Suspension Act is inapplicable to crimes committed after the date of termination of hostilities. The words of the Act are that the 'running' of the statute of limitations 'shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities'. The connotation is that offenses occurring prior to the termination of hostilities shall not be allowed legally to be forgotten in the rush of the war activities. That is the gist of the Reports.2 The fear was that the law-enforcement officers would be so preoccupied with prosecution of the war effort that the crimes of fraud perpetrated against the United States would be forgotten until it was too late. The implicit premise of the legislation is that the frenzied activities, existing at the time the Act became law, would continue until hostilities terminated and that until then the public interest should not be disadvantaged. The prosecution would have us change the function of the date of termination of hostilities. If would be used to provide various periods of suspension for crimes committed within the three-year period commencing with the termination of hostilities. That seems to us to be an alteration in the statutory scheme, one that destroys its symmetry. Since under our construction the three-year period prescribed by the Suspension Act starts to run at the date of termination of hostilities, all crimes to which the Act is applicable are treated uniformity. The time when law-enforcement officers were busy with war activities is not counted; when the pressure was off, the time began to run again. No reasons of policy are suggested for straining the language of the Act to suspend the rumming of the statute beyond the emergency which made the suspension seem advisable.
Affirmed.
I join in the opinion and judgment of the Court. Soon after the beginning of World War II, Congress realized that it would be impossible for the Department of Justice currently to investigate and prosecute the large number of offenses arising out of the war effort. Therefore Congress suspended the running of the statute of limitations as to frauds against the Government, first until June 30, 1945, and subsequently until three years after the termination of hostilities. It is clear that Congress intended to give the Department more time to apprehend, investigate, and prosecute offenses occurring 'under the stress of present-day events' of the war 'even after the termination of the present conflict.' H.R.Rep.No. 2051, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 2; S.Rep.No. 1544, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 2; see United States v. Gottfried, 2 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 360. V-E Day was May 8, 1945, and V-J Day was September 2, 1945. Immediately after V-J Day all war procurement stopped, contracts were canceled, and renegotiation was speeded up. The President did not proclaim the cessation of hostilities until December 31, 1946, sixteen months after the fighting ceased. During this period, the pressing problems of demobilization and reconversion—problems likely to cause the continued perpetration of frauds on the Government—were for the most part brought to an end.
The present cases had nothing to do with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. United States
...the offenses before us. The present Suspension Act had its origin in the Act of August 24, 1942.15 See United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 226 227, 72 S.Ct. 260, 261, 96 L.Ed. 252. That Act was a wartime measure reviving for World War II substantially the same exception to the general sta......
-
United States ex rel. Bergman v. Laboratories
...*2, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104650, at *5–*7. The court also cited the early case law on the WSLA (quoting United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 228–29, 72 S.Ct. 260, 96 L.Ed. 252 (1952)), and the court's previous decision (like the Eastern District supra ) not to extend the FCA's tolling pro......
-
United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...“committed while the nation [is] distracted by the demands of war.” Prosperi, 573 F.Supp.2d at 449;see United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 228, 72 S.Ct. 260, 96 L.Ed. 252 (1952) (explaining that one purpose of WSLA “is that offenses occurring prior to the termination of hostilities shall ......
-
United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.
...only to offenses committed after the triggering clause and before the termination of hostilities. United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 229–30, 72 S.Ct. 260, 96 L.Ed. 252 (1952). The running of the limitations period then begins when hostilities are terminated. Id. at 229–30, 72 S.Ct. at 26......
-
High Court Should Reverse 4th Circ.s Flawed FCA Ruling
...procurement effort would invariably present "unscrupulous persons" with opportunities to defraud the Government. United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 228-29 n.2 Congress was concerned that "'[t]hese frauds may be difficult to discover as is often true of this type of offense and many of th......
-
Fourth Circuit Expands FCA Limitations Period
...the statute of limitations does not toll for offenses committed before hostilities began. Carter at *8 (citing United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225, 262 (1952)). Among its other holdings, Carter held that hostilities have not terminated in Iraq because the WSLA's requirement of a "president......