States vs. Gibson, 47 Federal, 833, the Court quashed an indictment under this section, which set out in substance that the defendant had offered a bribe to an internal revenue officer to set fire to a distillery within the limits of a State. He very properly held that this was the offering of a bribe to perform an act which was not in any sense within the official function of the revenue officer, and, therefore, not an offense under the section. The crime of arson, of course, unless committed upon some Government reservation, is not cognizable in the United States Courts, and is not a United States offense. So, also, in the case of United States vs. Boyer, it was determined that an Inspector of the Agriculture Department of the United States, charged with the enforcement of unconstitutional regulations, and offered a bribe not to perform such regulations, the offering of such a bribe was not an offense under 5451, for the reason that the Inspector, in the failure to perform an unconstitutional duty, would not in any sense, defraud the United States, nor fail to perform an act which it was his lawful duty to perform. In United States vs. Kessel, 62 Federal, 57, and United States vs. Van Leuven, 62 Federal, 62, District Judge Shiras, in passing upon old Section 5501, determined that a member of a Board of Examining Surgeons is a person acting in behalf of the United States in an official capacity, and, therefore, subject to an indictment for receiving a bribe. The same reasoning adopted by the judge in those two cases. will apply to offenses under Section 5451.

The case of United States vs. Ingham, 97 Federal, 935, was a prosecution based upon an attempt to bribe a Secret Service operative employed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and in passing directly upon the question as to whether or not such operative was an officer of the United States within the necessary meaning of 5451, the Court held that he was not such an officer, but that the prosecution would lie under the phrase in the statute, "official function," and held that official function, as spoken of in the statute is not necessarily a function belonging to an office held by a person acting on behalf of the United States. It may also be a function belonging to an office held by his superior which function has been committed to the subordinate, whether he be also an officer or a mere employee for the purpose of executing the function.

In the case of United States vs. Green, 136 Federal, 618, the doctrine was announced that the giving of a check as a bribe will not necessarily be an offense under the statute, unless there be sufficient allegations in the indictment to show that the check was good, and that the bank upon which it was drawn was a going concern, and that the same would be honored, and other allegations to show that as a matter of fact the check was valuable. A bank check not thus defined in the bill of indictment is not an obligation for the payment of money, within the legal meaning of such term, as used in the section, and the tendering by a person of his personal check, drawn on a bank, and payable to an officer of the United States to such officer, with intent thereby to affect his official action, does not constitute the crime of bribery, since the check made and delivered for such illegal purpose is void and not within any of the classes of instruments enumerated in the statute. In the case of Vernon vs. U. S., 146 Federal, 121, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sets out a count of an indictment under this section. That was a prosecution for an alleged attempt to bribe an agent of the Treasury Department, charged with the location of public buildings. The evidence, however, was held to be insufficient by the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Palliser vs. United States 136 U. S., 268; 34 Law Ed., 514, held that a letter written and sent from New York to a postmaster in Connecticut, asking him to put postage stamps on circulars and send them out at the rate of fifty to one hundred daily, and promising him that if he would do so, the writer of the letter would remit to him the price of stamps, was a tender of a contract for the payment of money to induce him to sell postage stamps for credit in violation of his lawful duty, and contrary to Section 5451; and such an offer for an unlawful sale of postage stamps on credit is not the less within the statute because the postmaster's commission on the sale would be no greater than upon a lawful sale for cash.

§ 185a. Officer.-An immigrant inspector is an officer within the meaning of Section 39. Becharias vs. U. S., 208 Federal, 143.

§ 186. Unlawfully Taking or Using Papers Relating to Claims.-Section 40 reads as follows:

"Sec. 40. Whoever shall take and carry away, without authority from the United States, from the place where it has been filed, lodged, or deposited, or where it may for the time being actually be kept by authority of the United States, any certificate, affidavit, deposition, written statement of facts, power of attorney, receipt, voucher, assignment, or other document, record, file, or paper, prepared, fitted, or intended to be used or presented in order to procure the payment of money from or by the United States, or any officer or agent thereof, or the allowance or payment of the whole or any part of any claim, account, or demand against the United States, whether the same has or has not already been so used or presented, and whether such claim, account, or demand, or any part thereof, has or has not already been allowed or paid; or whoever shall present, use, or attempt to use, any such document, record, file, or paper so taken and carried away, in order to procure the payment of any money from or by the United States, or any officer or agent thereof, or the allowance or payment of the whole or any part of any claim, account, or demand against the United States, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

§ 187. Persons Interested Not to Act as Agents of the Government.-Section 1783 of the old statutes becomes Section 41 of the new Code in the following words:

"Sec. 41. No officer or agent of any corporation, joint stock company, or association, and no member or agent of any firm, or person directly or indirectly interested in the pecuniary profits or contracts of such corporation, joint stock company, association, or firm, shall be employed or shall act as an officer or agent of the United States for the transaction of business with such corporation, joint stock company, association, or firm. Whoever shall violate the provision of this section shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than two years."

Old Section 1783 applied only to officers of "banking or other commercial" corporations, but in the new statute these words have been omitted, so that the section, as it now stands is applicable to the officers of any corporation. It has likewise been made more comprehensive, in that it now covers officers and agents of any "joint stock company or association."

§ 188. Enticing Desertions from the Military or Naval Service.-Section 42 of the new Code re-enacts the

substantial provisions of Sections 1553 and 5455 of the old Code in the following words:

"Sec. 42. Whoever shall entice or procure, or attempt or endeavor to entice or procure, any soldier in the military service, or any seaman or other person in the naval service of the United States, or who has been recruited for such service, to desert therefrom, or shall aid any such soldier, seaman, or other person in deserting or in attempting to desert from such service; or whoever shall harbor, conceal, protect, or assist any such soldier, seaman, or other person who may have deserted from such service, knowing him to have deserted therefrom, or shall refuse to give up and deliver such soldier, seaman, or other person on the demand of any officer authorized to receive him, shall be imprisoned not more than three years and fined not more than two thousand dollars."

The only substantial addition is the word "seaman,' which the old statutes did not include. In the case of Kurtz vs. Moffitt, 115 U. S., 487, the Supreme Court held that a deserter from the United States army could not be arrested by a police officer or private citizen without warrant or authority from the United States.

§ 189. Enticing Away Workman.-Section 43 of the new Code re-enacts the provisions of Sections 1668 of the old statutes, adding thereto the word "artificer" instead of the word "armorer," and is in the following words:

"Sec. 43. Whoever shall procure or entice any artificer or workman retained or employed in any arsenal or armory, to depart from the same during the continuance of his engagement, or to avoid or break his contract with the United States; or whoever, after due notice of the engagement of such workman or artificer, during the continuance of such engagement, shall retain, hire, or in anywise employ, harbor, or conceal such artificer or workman, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars, or imprisoned not more than three months, or both.'

§ 190. Injuries to Fortifications, Harbor Defenses, Etc.-Section 44 of the new Code re-enacts the meat of the Act of July 7, 1898; Second Supplement, 885, and simplifies the original Act by omitting the words "wantonly or maliciously" before "trespass," since authorities are a unit that the word “wilful" will include any wanton or malicious act, and is in the following words:

"Sec. 44. Whoever shall willfully trespass upon, injure, or destroy any of the works or property or material of any submarine mine or torpedo, or fortification or harbor-defense system owned or constructed or in process of construction by the United States, or shall willfully interfere with the operation or use of any such submarine mine, torpedo, fortification, or harbor-defense system, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

$191. Unlawfully Entering Upon Military Reservation, Fort, Etc.-Section 45 of the new Code is an entirely new Act, and is in the following words:

"Sec. 45. Whoever shall go upon any military reservation, army post, fort, or arsenal, for any purpose prohibited by law or military regulation made in pursuance of law, or whoever shall re-enter or be found within any such reservation, post, fort, or arsenal, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to re-enter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

§ 192. Robbery or Larceny of Personal Property of the United States.-Old Section 5456 is re-enacted into new Section 46, in the following words:

"Sec. 46. Whoever shall rob another of any kind or description of personal property belonging to the United States, or shall feloniously take and carry away the same, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

In the case of Jolly vs. United States, 170 Federal, 402; 42 Law Ed., 185, the Supreme Court held that there are two distinct offenses mentioned in the statute: one is the offense of robbery, and the other is the crime of feloniously taking and carrying away any kind or description of personal property belonging to the United States. This is a distinct and separate offense from that of robbery. "If the statute required the taking to be forcible in all cases, the language providing against the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of the United States would be surplusage, the forcible taking being already implied and included in the use of the word 'rob'; but in addition to robbery, the offense of feloniously (not forcibly) taking the personal property of the United States, is created."