United States v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 23 July 1917
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WILCOX et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

243 F. 993

UNITED STATES v. WILCOX et al.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

July 23, 1917

Harvey A. Baker, U.S. Atty., of Providence, R.I.

Wilson Gardner & Churchill, of Providence, R.I., for defendants.

BROWN District Judge.

The demurrers raise the question whether the indictment sufficiently charges a conspiracy to violate section 19 of the Criminal Code, and more specifically whether it properly charges that the defendants did 'conspire to injure oppress, threaten, or intimidate' one Adelbert A. Martin in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right of voting freely for a candidate for representative in Congress. The proposed means to this end are set forth as follows:

'By peremptorily ordering, requiring and directing said citizen to vote for one Roswell B. Burchard for representative in said Congress at said election at all events, and without reference to whether said Roswell B. Burchard was the candidate of his, the said Adelbert A. Martin's choice for representative in said Congress, and to threaten to use their efforts to cause one John McCarthy, who was a principal customer of said Adelbert A. Martin in connection with his, the said Adelbert A. Martin's, business of supplying poultry to hotel keepers and others, to withdraw his custom and trade from said Adelbert A. Martin unless he would so vote for said Roswell B. Burchard, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'

'Peremptorily ordering, requiring and directing' does not amount to intimidation; nor does it 'injure, oppress or threaten.' These words are without substance and are of no legal effect.

' * * * To threaten to use their efforts to cause one John McCarthy * * * to withdraw his custom and trade from said Adelbert A. Martin unless he would so vote for said Roswell B. Burchard,' etc.

-- does not amount to a charge of a conspiracy to make direct threats of a loss of custom, but merely of a conspiracy to make threats to use their efforts to cause John McCarthy to withdraw his custom.

We have then a conspiracy to threaten-- to use efforts to cause-- John McCarthy to withdraw custom. But John McCarthy, one of the defendants, as is stated on the brief of the United States, is the same John McCarthy upon whom efforts are to be made. As to this defendant, the present case is a case of primary impression; for John is charged with conspiracy to threaten, to use efforts, to cause, John (i.e., himself) to withdraw his own custom. If John were to threaten the voter that he (John) would use his own efforts to cause himself to withdraw his custom, this would make the withdrawal conditional upon John's making up his own mind, and detract much from the menace, even if it were also threatened that the other conspirators would unite with their efforts to cause John, John's own efforts to cause himself to withdraw his custom from the voter.

Though section 19 does not require it, the second count contains allegations of overt acts. One of these is that John McCarthy said to the voter that unless he worked for the ticket on which Burchard was a candidate for representative in Congress, etc., McCarthy would withdraw his trade and custom. This individual act of John McCarthy's, however, does not fall within the federal statutes, and cannot be brought within section 19 of the Criminal Code, to make a case of federal jurisdiction upon the theory that the scheme or plan which preceded it was shared with...