Page images
PDF
EPUB

Statement of the Case.

“United States of America, Southern District of New York, ss. John H. Bario, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an inspector of the Post Office Department; that on October 23d, 1888, Charles Palliser of the city and State of New York, then and there doing business under the name and style of Palliser, Palliser & Co., at Old Lyme, in the county of New London, in the State and District of Connecticut, with force and arms unlawfully and wilfully did tender to one W. R. De Wolf, who then and there was and thereafter continued to be until the 4th day of March, 1889, a postmaster of the United States at a certain post office known as Black Hall, in said county of New London, a certain contract in the words and figures following:

New York, October 23, 1888. Postmaster, Black Hall, Conn.

* Dear Sir: We desire in each county a place through which to send out mail matter, as we want to reach every business man, mechanic and real-estate owner in every State by circular. If we ship to you from our printing department, located in the country in your State, say 5000 or 10,000 circulars in envelopes, and each addressed, will you give the same your careful attention, sending out daily 50 to 100 during the coming months until they are all out, and then render us statement of same, with account for stamps used, and we will remit. We are doing this at other general store post-offices in adjoining counties to yours, and it is perfectly legitimate, and we await your reply in addressed and stamped envelope enclosed herewith, as,

if you cannot attend to same, we must at once send elsewhere.

*Yours very truly,

PALLISER, PALLISER & Co.' with the intent of him, the said Palliser, to induce him, the said De Wolf, as such postmaster, to do certain acts in violation of his lawful duty as such postmaster - that is to say, to sell him, the said Palliser, postage stamps of the United States otherwise than for cash, to wit, upon the credit of said Palliser, against the peace of the United States and contrary

Statement of the Case.

to the statutes thereof in such case made and provided. Deponent further says that said Charles Palliser is now within the Southern District of New York.

“ John H. BARIO. “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of September, 1889.

“JOHN A. SHIELDS, U. S. Commissioner.” Second. The warrant of arrest, dated September 27, 1889, reciting the substance of the complaint, and that it had been satisfactorily proved to the commissioner “that the said Charles Palliser is now within the Southern District of New York.”

Third. The bringing of the prisoner before the commissioner, and his discharge on bail pending his examination.

Fourth. The evidence taken before the commissioner, tending to prove the following facts : Palliser was a member of the firm of Palliser, Palliser & Co., architects and publishers of works on building, having their principal place of business in the city of New York, and a printing-office at Bridgeport in the State of Connecticut. The letter set forth in the complaint was signed and mailed by Palliser at New York in a sealed envelope; and was received at Black Hall in the county of New London and State of Connecticut by De Wolf, postmaster at that place, who was a postmaster of the fourth class, receiving no salary, and compensated upon the basis of, among other things, the amount of stamps cancelled at his office. Act of March 3, 1883, c. 142, § 2, 22 Stat. 602. At the same time, Palliser sent similar letters from New York or Bridgeport to many other postmasters of the same class in Connecticut. About a fortnight afterwards, De Wolf received by freight a box of circulars; and on November 26, 1888, he sent by mail to Palliser, Palliser & Co., at the city of New York a reply to their letter in these words : “Gentlemen: Have received a case of circulars from you, which I did not order, as cannot handle them. They are here subject to your order. Take notice of sec. 515 of postal laws and regulations, 1887.

"Yours, etc.,

“W.R. DE WOLF, P. M."

Argument for Petitioner.

Fifth. An order of the commissioner, dated November 26, 1889, committing the prisoner, upon his surrender by his bail, to the custody of the marshal.

Sixth. The final order of the commissioner, dated December 3, 1889, by which, after reciting the arrest and examination, and "it appearing to me from the testimony offered that there is probable cause to believe the said Charles Palliser guilty of the offence charged in said warrant, the said Charles Palliser is hereby committed for trial at the District of Connecticut, the district in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and he is hereby remanded to the custody of the United States marshal for the Southern District of New York until the warrant for his removal shall issue by the United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, or he be otherwise dealt with according to law.”

The record transmitted to this court, after setting forth the proceedings above stated, further set forth: 1st. An opinion of the Circuit Judge, filed December 3, 1889, treating the case as before him, and not before the Circuit Court, and directing the writ of habeas corpus to be dismissed; 2d. An order of the Circuit Court, at a stated term held on the same day, ordering the writ of habeas corpus to be dismissed and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the marshal; 3d. An appeal from that order to this court.

Mr. Roger Foster for the petitioner.

I. The sending of the letter described in the complaint did not constitute a crime, even if it were unlawful for the postmasters to sell postage stamps upon credit.

(1) The circular contains no offer upon the part of Mr. Palliser to send the circulars in case the postmasters should agree to sell the stamps for them on credit.

(2) The request of a public officer to aid the party making the request in the performance of an act in violation of such officer's duty, through which each will make a profit, is not the offer of a bribe. For the principles for construing such statutes see Harding v. Stokes, 1 M. & W.354; People v. Smith, 28 Hun, 626; People v. Emerson, 6 Conn. Crim. Rep. (N. Y.)

Argument for Petitioner.

157; Dunn v. People, 29 N. Y. 523; Commonwealth v. Iillard, 22 Pick. 476; State v. Hopkins, 4 Jones N. C. 305; Rawles v. State, 15 Texas, 581; Stabler v. Commonwealth, 95 Penn. St. 318; Stampler v. Commonwealth, 7 Bush, 612.

II. The sale of postage stamps upon credit is not a violation of a postmaster's official duty. The government is amply protected by his bond. Rev. Stat. $ 3834. This is a penal statute and must be construed strictly. See The Enterprise, 1 Paine, 32; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Penn. St. 119; Commonwealth v. Martin, 17 Mass. 359; United States v. Sheldon, 2 Wheat. 119; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Henderson v. Bise, 3 Starkie, 158; Wells v. Porter, 2 Bing. N. C. 722: Thomas v. Stevenson, 2. El. & Bl. 108; Coe v. Lawrance, 1. El. & Bl. 516; Broadhead v. Holdsworth, 2 Ex. D. 321 ; Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Cohen, 49 Georgia, 627; St. Louis Type Foundry v. Union Printing Co., 3 Missouri App. 142; Hoffman V. John Hancock Ins. Co., 92 U. S. 161; United States v. Williamson, 26 Fed. Rep. 690; United States v. Douglass, 33 Fed. Rep. 381.

III. The District Court of Connecticut has no jurisdiction to try Mr. Palliser for the offence charged against him. United States v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498. The offence was complete when the letter was mailed. The fact that the person to whom it was addressed lived in Connecticut makes no difference. Mr. Palliser has a constitutional right to a trial in the Southern District of New York, where he resides and is known.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” This amendment is to be construed liberally in view of its history and the rights which it is designed to protect. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616.

Opinion of the Court.

[merged small][ocr errors]

It is supplementary to a clause of the Constitution as originally ratified in section 2 of Article III. “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crime shall have been committed."

These constitutional provisions cannot be nullified by any statute of the United States. Consequently, if section 731 of the Revised Statutes conflicts with them, it is unconstitutional and void.

But that statute does not cover the case at bar. Mr. Palliser's alleged crime was complete when the letter was mailed in New York. United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384; United States v. Bickford, 4 Blatchford, 337; United States v. Plympton, 4 Cranch C. C. 309; Dana's Case, 7 Benedict, 1; United States v. Comerford, 25 Fed. Rep. 902; State v. Bunker, 38 Kansas, 737; United States v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Ripley v. State, 9 Humphrey, 616.

Mr. Solicitor General opposing.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the record before us, the final order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus, and remanding the prisoner to the custody of the marshal, appears to have been a decision of the Circuit Court at a stated term, and therefore clearly subject to an appeal to this court, under the act of March 3, 1885, . c. 353. 23 Stat. 437; Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87.

But he was rightly remanded to custody, because the return shows that he was charged with a crime against the laws of the United States and within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States for the District of Connecticut.

By section 5451 of the Revised Statutes, “every person who promises, offers or gives, or causes or procures to be promised, offered or given, any money or other thing of value, or makes or tenders any contract, undertaking, obligation, gratuity or security for the payment of money, or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value to any officer of the United

« PreviousContinue »