Opinion of the Court.

then and there, in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, unlawfully, falsely, knowingly, and feloniously vote at a place, to wit, at the sixth precinct in the second ward in said city, where he was not then and there lawfully entitled to vote, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the United States.

"And the grand jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the United States, do further find and present that at the said election the said Morris Blitz did then and there, in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously vote at said election for a candidate for the same office for Representative in the Congress of the United States more than once, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States."

A verdict of guilty having been returned upon each count of the indictment, the defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment upon written grounds filed. The motion for a new trial was denied, and the motion in arrest of judgment was sustained as to the second count of the indictment, and overruled as to the first and third counts. Thereupon the defendant was sentenced upon the first count to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of one year and a day, such imprisonment to begin on the 28th day of November, 1893, -on which day the sentence was pronounced, — and, upon the third count, to imprisonment for a like period, to begin upon the expiration of the sentence upon the first count.

1. The first assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court below to permit Wachs, a witness for the prosecution, to answer a certain question propounded to him on crossexamination. Upon examination-in-chief the witness stated that he was a special deputy of the United States marshal at the general election in November, 1892; that during the whole of the day of the election he was at the voting place in precinct number six, in Kansas City, Missouri, and that he saw

Opinion of the Court.

Blitz, whom he had known by sight for about three years, vote twice at that poll, once in the morning about ten o'clock, and again in the afternoon between three and four o'clock. Upon cross-examination he was asked, "Why did you not arrest Blitz when you saw that he had voted?" The witness was not allowed to answer this question, and to that action of the court the defendant excepted.

The question was clearly irrelevant, and was properly excluded. The reasons, whatever they may have been, that induced the witness not to arrest the defendant when the latter voted the second time at the same election, did not throw any light upon the issue to be determined. If the object was to test the accuracy or credibility of the witness, it is quite sufficient to say that the extent to which a crossexamination may be allowed for such a purpose -- especially where, as in this case, the question had no reference to any matter disclosed by the examination-in-chief- is largely subject to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable upon writ of error; certainly not where the question, upon its face. suggests nothing material to the inquiry whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the specific offence charged in the indictment.

2. The overruling of the motion for new trial is next assigned for error. We had supposed that it was well understood by the bar that the refusal of a court of the United States to grant a new trial cannot be reviewed upon writ of error. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24; Wabash Railway Co. v. McDaniel, 107 U. S. 454, 456.

3. The third assignment of error relates to the overruling of the motion to arrest the judgment upon the first and third counts of the indictment.

We are of opinion that this motion should have been sustained in respect to the first count. The statute makes it an offence for any person to knowingly personate and vote, or attempt to vote, in the name of another person, whether living, dead, or fictitious, at an election for Representative or Delegate in Congress. It appears in this case and if it did

Opinion of the Court.

not appear, the court would judicially know that the election referred to in the introductory part of the indictment was a general one at which voters were at liberty to vote at the same poll, by printed ballot, not only for a Representative. in Congress, but for state officers, including Presidential electors. It was one election for all such officers, and the exercise of the privilege of voting was manifested by one act upon the part of the voter, namely, depositing in the ballotbox a general ballot showing, upon its face, for what officers he voted.

The first count charged that the defendant knowingly personated and voted, and attempted to vote, in the name of another person to the grand jurors unknown, at an election had and held for choice of Representative in the Congress of the United States. But that was not, except by inference, a charge that the defendant, in fact, voted for Representative in Congress. He may have voted only for state officers, and yet it could be said, not unreasonably, that he voted at an election had and held for Representative in Congress. If, in yoting for a state officer at such election, he knowingly personated and voted in the name of another, it was an offence against the State, punishable alone by the State, although the general election at which he voted was one at which a Representative in Congress was chosen. The object of section 5511 was to prevent frauds that would affect the vote for Representatives in Congress, and not to bring elections for state officers under the control of the general government. It was consequently held, in Coy's case, that a conspiracy by unlawful means to induce the officers of election, appointed by the State, to omit the duty imposed upon them by the state law, in respect to the custody and safe-keeping of sealed returns showing the results of an election held for both state officers and for Representatives in Congress, was an offence against the United States, although the only purpose of the conspirators may have been to obtain the custody of such returns for the purpose of fraudulently changing them so far as they applied to certain state officers. This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, said: "The object to be

Opinion of the Court.

attained by these acts of Congress is to guard against the danger and the opportunity of tampering with the election. returns, as well as against direct and intentional frauds upon the vote for members of that body. The law is violated whenever the evidences concerning the votes cast for that purpose are exposed or subjected in the hands of improper persons or unauthorized individuals to the opportunity for their falsification, or to the danger of such changes or forgeries as may affect that election, whether they actually do so or not, and whether the purpose of the party guilty of thus wresting them from their proper custody and exposing them to such danger might accomplish this result." Again: "The manifest purpose of both systems of legislation is to remove the ballot-box, as well as the certificates of the votes cast, from all possible opportunity of falsification, forgery, or destruction; and to say that the mere careless omission, or the want of an intention on the part of persons who are alleged to have acted feloniously in the violation of those laws, excuses them because they did not intend to violate their provisions as to all the persons voted for at such an election, although they might have intended to affect the result as regards some of them, is manifestly contrary to common sense, and is not supported by any sound authority." In re Coy, 127 Ụ. S. 731, 754, 755.

It is not to be inferred from the decision in that case that section 5511 is applicable to any act or omission of duty upon the part of an officer of election, or of a voter or other person, except such act or omission of duty as affected or might affect the integrity of the election for a Representative in Congress. The conspiracy charged in that case did imperil the integrity of the vote for Representative in Congress, because the returns of the election related to Representative in Congress as well as to state officers, and were liable to be falsified if they passed, before certificates of election were issued, into the hands of unauthorized persons. But this reasoning has no application to the present case. Voting, in the name of another, for a state officer, cannot possibly affect the integrity of an election for Representative in Cangress. With frauds of

Opinion of the Court.

that character the national government has no concern, and, therefore, an indictment under Rev. Stat. § 5511 for know ingly personating and voting under the name of another, should clearly show that the accused actually voted for a Representative in Congress, and not simply that in voting he falsely personated another at a general election at which such Representative was or could have been chosen. In cases like the present one, it should not be left in doubt, or to mere inference, from the words of the indictment, whether the offence charged was one within Federal cognizance. United States v. Morrissey, 32 Fed. Rep. 147; United States v. Seaman, 23 Fed. Rep. 882. The general rule that an indictment for an offence purely statutory is sufficient if it pursues substantially the words of the statute, is subject to the qualification, fundamental in the law of criminal procedure, "that the accused must be apprised by the indictment, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him, to the end that he may prepare his defence and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offence." United States v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360, 362; United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 488. As said in United States v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 612, it is not sufficient to set forth the offence in the words of the statute, "unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished."

The want of care in framing the first count is further shown by the fact that, although voting and attempting to vote, knowingly, in the name of another, for Representative in Congress, may be distinct offences, under the statute, the indictment charges that the defendant did knowingly "personate and vote and attempt to vote" in the name of another person. If the attempt to so vote was immediately followed by voting, then the allegation that the accused attempted to vote was unnecessary. The first count leaves it in doubt whether it was intended to charge two distinct offences, or only the offence of voting in the name of another person. This defect alone might not have been sufficient, after verdict, as ground