202. Interrupting Service. 203. Agreement to Prevent Bids at Sale of Lands. 204. Injuries to United States Telegraph, Etc., Lines. 205. Counterfeiting Weather Forecasts. 206. Interfering with Employees of Bureau of Animal Industry. 207. Forgery of Certificate of Entry. 208. 209. Concealment or Destruction of Invoices, Etc. Resisting Revenue Officers; Rescuing or Destroying Seized 210. Falsely Assuming to be Revenue Officers. 211. Offering Presents to Revenue Officers. 212. Admitting Merchandise to Entry for Less than Legal Duty. 213. Securing Entry of Merchandise by False Samples, Etc. 214. False Certification by Consular Officers. 215. Taking Seized Property from Custody of Revenue Officer. 216. Forging, Etc., Certificate of Citizenship. 217. Engraving, Etc., Plate for Printing or Photographing, Concealing or Bringing Into the United States, Etc., Certificate of Citizenship. 218. False Personation, Etc., in Procuring Naturalization. 219. Using False Certificate of Citizenship or Denying Citizenship, Etc. 220. Using False Certificate, Etc., as Evidence of Right to Vote 221. Falsely Claiming Citizenship. 222. Taking False Oath in Naturalization. 222a. Oath Must be Material. 223. Provisions Applicable to all Courts of Naturalization. 223a. To Cancel Certificate. 224. Corporations, Etc., Not to Contribute Money for Political Elections, Etc. § 170. In the new Criminal Code, which went into effect January 1, 1910, there are fifty-eight sections, from 27 to 58 inclusive, which treat of various offenses under the above general head, many of which sections will not be considered herein, other than to copy them, and refer to the old Section of the Revised Statutes of like nature, for the reason that such offenses are scarcely ever committed. § 171. Forgery of Letters Patent.-The Act of March 3, 1825, which became Section 5416 of the Revised Statutes, and which the Court, in the case of United States vs. Irwin, 5 McLean, 178, determined had repealed the fourteenth section of the Act of April 30, 1790, which provided for the death penalty for certain forgeries, is now Section 27 of the new Code, in the following words: "Whoever shall falsely make, forge, counterfeit, or alter any letters patent granted or purporting to have been granted by the President of the United States; or whoever shall pass, utter, or publish or attempt to pass, utter, or publish as genuine, any such forged, counterfeited or falsely altered letters patent, knowing the same to be forged, counterfeited, or falsely altered, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than ten years.' § 172. Forging Bond, Bid, Public Record, Etc.Section 28 of the new Code, which is in the following words: "Sec. 28. Whoever shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited, or willingly aid, or assist, in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, or have in his possession with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing, for the purpose of defrauding the United States, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, the office of any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited, for the purpose of defrauding the United States, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than ten years or both," takes the place of Sections 5418 and 5479 of the Revised Statutes, which largely duplicate each other. Many cases. of interest arose under the two old statutes, and since the new section comprehends the elements of those two statutes, the decisions thereunder may be considered authority in construing and determining the elements of an offense under the new section. In United States vs. Hall, 131 U. S., page 50, the Supreme Court held that a notary public has no general authority to administer oaths in reference to United States matters, unless there be a special statute with reference to such matter. This decision was approved in United States vs. Reilly, 131 U. S., 59, 33 Law Ed., 75. In United States vs. Manion, 44 Federal, 800, it is held that no Federal law authorizes notaries to take affidavits required by Land Department rules. In United States vs. Todd, 25 Federal, page 815, it was determined, as we have already seen with reference to prosecutions under the new Code, that a prosecution under Sections 5418 and 5479 could not be begun by information, since the punishment was infamous. The elements necessary to be alleged and proven to make an offense under the section are plainly set forth in the case of United States vs. Houghton, 14 Federal, 544. That was a prosecution against a collector of a port for forging a payroll for transmission to his superior at Washington, as a result of which he would secure the money. The Court, in that case, held that the indictment must allege, and the proof show, that the pay-roll was false, forged, and counterfeited; that the same was transmitted to the proper officer of the Government by the defendant; and that the false character of the writing was known by the defendant at the time of the sending; and that it was sent with intent to defraud the United States. Legal knowledge, as herein understood, and as understood in all criminal prosecutions, is, that every man is presumed to know everything that he can learn upon inquiry, when he has facts in his possession which suggest the inquiry. This sort of knowledge must be affirmatively shown by the Government, except in the case of confession. It is generally impossible to make it out by direct evidence, and can only be inferred from overt acts. Wharton, in discussing the subject, says that if the knowledge cannot be implied from the facts and circumstances which, together with it, constitute the offense, the other acts of the defendant from which it can be implied to the satisfaction of the jury must be proved at the trial. It will be borne in mind that the statute denounces the offense of forgery, and not the offense of perjury, as was made clear by the opinion in the case of United States vs. Wentworth, 11 Federal, 52. It is absolutely necessary that the indictment allege that the acts were committed for the purpose of defrauding the United States, and that the persons so committing the offense had such intent; and if the facts completely show upon their face that the result would not have been a fraud upon the United States, or that the United States could not have been defrauded, then and in that event, no offense is plead. In the case of United States vs. Barnhart, 33 Federal, 459, which grew out of a forged affidavit with reference to the selection of certain Government lands, the Court held that even though the affidavit was false and forged, no offense was committed, for the reason that the affidavit could not be legally used before the Land Office or before the Secretary of the Interior, for the reason that those officers had theretofore superseded such affidavits; hence, such affidavits could not be legally used to defraud the United States. In United States vs. Gowdy, 37 Federal, 333, the Court held that a false affidavit in support of a pension would support a prosecution hereunder, because the same was in support of a claim against the Government, which would have resulted in defrauding the Government. In United States vs. Bunting, 82 Federal, 883, an applicant for a Government clerkship filed a sworn application in the form required for an examination by the Civil Service Commission, and was afterwards notified by postal card to appear for examination at a time stated. By previous arrangement, another person, impersonating the applicant, presented himself for examination, and filled out a paper known as the declaration sheet, which contained questions concerning the applicant, and signed the applicant's name thereto. The Court held that Section 5418 covered such a case, and sustained the indictment, and observed that the acts were an attempt to prejudice the rights of the United States in the administration of the Civil Service Statutes, and had the defendant been successful, he would have obtained a privilege which would have placed him in a favored class, and have entitled him to an advantage over others in the appointment to office, which privilege was a valuable one, and would have been in prejudice of the Goverment. In the case of Staton vs. United States, 88 Federal, 253, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in passing upon a case wherein the defendant had been convicted while a postmaster for making out his quarterly accounts and forging the name of the Justice of the Peace thereto, and thus pretending to show that he had taken his oath to the correctness of his accounts before the Justice of the Peace, and upon the trial of which the defendant had contended that, as a matter of fact, his accounts were just and true, and had thereupon requested the trial court to instruct the jury that if, as a matter of fact, his accounts were true and just, that then and in that event the United States could not have been defrauded, said: "Inasmuch as the trial Court, in its charge, altogether ignored the intent with which the acts complained of had been committed, and instructed the jury that the accused was guilty of the crime of forgery, if he signed the name of the Justice to his reports, .... it is manifest that there was error.' The Court further said that the accused was entitled to have the jury determine the intent involved, because it was a necessary ingredient of the offense charged in the indictment, as to whether he had been actuated with an intent to defraud the United States. So, also, in the case of the United States vs. Ah Won, 97 Federal, 494, it was held that the making of a blank form of a certificate of residence, such as when filed are issued by the United States to Chinese and entitle them to remain in the country, is not within Section 5418, making it a crime to counterfeit any writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States. In United States vs. McKinley, 127 Federal, 166, the Court held that the forgery of homestead applications and affidavits with intent to thereby obtain title to public lands of the United States, constitutes an offense under Section 5418, although the land was described as in Township 24 South of Range East, without naming the meridian, where, in fact, all the townships in the state are numbered from the same meridian, and the description was, therefore, suffiicent to identify the lands to the officers acting on the papers, and such papers were capable of effecting the intended fraud. In the case of Neff vs. United States, 165 Federal, 273, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, held that when a false instrument or affidavit is so palpably and absolutely invalid that it cannot defraud or inflict loss or injury under any circumstances, it may not form the basis of a charge of forging it or of uttering it, or of transmitting it, to the officer, to defraud the United States; but if, under any |