CHAPTER VII. BRIBERY. § 2813. CORRUPTION, so far as it concerns the misconduct, active or passive, of the officer corrupted, has been already independently noticed. a At present will be singly considered bribery so far as it relates to the person offering the bribe. § 2814. Bribery as a common law offence is defined by Blackstone to be where a judge or other person connected with the administration of justice seeks an undue reward to influence his behavior in office. b Sir W. Russell c extends it to all cases where any undue reward is received or offered by or to any person whatsoever, whose ordinary business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity. d To attempt to bribe, even though the offence be not consummated, is a misdemeanor at common law. e And the offence is complete when an offer is made, although in a matter not within the jurisdiction of the officer. ƒ § 2815. In conformity with these views it has been held indictable at common law to be concerned either as actor or receiver in the bribery or attempt at bribery of an elector at any governmental election; g of a cabinet minister and member of the privy council; h of a commissioner of the revenue; of a member of the state legislature;j of a justice of the peace, even though the case in which the bribe is offered is not yet insti a Ante, § 2515. b 4 Blac. Com. 139. c 2 Russ. on Crimes, 122. d R. v. Beale, cited in R. v. Gibbons, 1 East R. 183. e 2 Russ. on Crimes, 124. f State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. (4 Vroom) 102. g R. v. Pitt, 3 Burr. 1335; R. v. Joliffe, 1 East R. 154 n; Com. v. Shaver, 3 W. & S. 338. See Russell v. Com. 3 Bush, 469. h Vaughan's case, 4 Burr. 2494. i U. S. v. Worrell, Whart. St. Trials, 139. j Com. v. McCook, cited in Whart. Prec. 1012 n. tuted; k of a judicial officer of any grade; and of a sheriff, to induce him to summon jurors to be nominated by the defendant. m And the same rule has been applied to a corrupt agreement between A. and B., that A. shall vote for C. as commissioner, in consideration that B. will vote for D. as clerk. n § 2816. Corroboration when more than a single witness is required. When a statute requires that a conviction for bribery shall not be had on the testimony of a single witness, without corroborating circumstances, the corroboratory evidence must go directly to the fact of the bribe. n1 k Barefield v. State, 14 Alabama, 603. 1 State v. Carpenter, 20 Vt. 9. m Com. v. Chapman, 1 Va. Cases, 138. 904 n Com. v. Callaghan, 2 Va. Cases, 460. o Russell v. Com. 3 Bush, 469. BOOK VIII. OFFENCES ON THE HIGH SEAS. CHAPTER I. PIRACY. § 2829. FOR several reasons the statutes heretofore given on this topic are omitted in this edition. They are to be found at large in the sixth edition, since whose publication there have been no new enactments, as well as in Mr. Brightly's Digest. They are now in the process of revision and consolidation by commissioners appointed by the United States. They are, in their present shape, very copious and tautologous, and their insertion would be inconsistent with the condensation which the great expansion of the law in other respects makes necessary. I must therefore now be restricted to a general review of the offence, which will be done under the following heads: — I. DEFINITION, § 2830. V. INTENT, § 2834. VI. BELLIGERENTS, § 2835. I. DEFINITION a. § 2830. Piracy, being beyond the jurisdiction of the common law, was, it seems, originally no felony thereat, and before the statute of 28 Hen. 7, c. 15, was punishable only by the civil law. On a point argued at the Old Bailey, before Holt, C. J., Treby, C. J., Powell, Powis, Wark, Rokesby, and Turton, JJ., it was held per cur. that "no attainder of piracy wrought corruption of blood, for it was no offence at common law."b But it would a For forms of indictment, see b R. v. Morphes, 1 Salk. 85. Whart. Prec. 575. appear to have been ever recognized as an offence against the law of nations, and Blackstone c refers to the enactments on that subject as "the principal cases in which the statute law of England interposes to aid and enforce the law of nations as a part of the common law." And it is in this sense Hawkins d is to be understood, when he defines a pirate at the common law to be one who commits any of these acts of piracy, robbery, and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. e By the law of nations, to adopt a recent and more accurate definition, ƒ a pirate is one who roves the sea in an armed vessel, without a commission from any state, upon his own authority, for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating any vessel he may meet. g The German and French authorities concur substantially in this view. By them piracy (Seeraub, or Sea Robbery, Piraterie) consists, by the law of nations, in an attack, in the nature of robbery as distinguished from larceny, by an uncommissioned vessel, on trading vessels on the high seas. Whether there must be the lucri causa was originally doubted; though now by the more recent jurists this element is held not necessary. h Privateers, according to this law, are not pirates so far as concerns hostile acts against an enemy's vessels, or bona fide against neutral trading ships. Jedenfalls können die von gültig bestellten Kapern verübten, gegen feindliche oder bona fide gegen neutrale Handelschiffe begangenen, Gewaltacte nicht als Seeraub betrachtet werden. i c 4 Com. 71, 73. d Pl. Cro. b. 1, c. 37; U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 159, 161; U. S. v. Pirates, Ibid. 184. See a collection of the doctrines of the civil, the maritime and the common law, and the law of nations, in a learned and comprehensive note to U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheaton, 163-180, which is now known to have been written by Mr. Justice Story, who delivered the opinion of the court in that case. Story's Life of Story, 283; U. S. v. Palmer et al. 3 Wheat. 630. e This, however, is defective, from the indefiniteness of the term "felony." h Heffter, Völkerr. § 104; Broglie, Sur la piraterie, in his works, III. 335. i Holtzendorff, Rechts lexicon, IL 449. This was conceded by our gov ernment in the late civil war, when it sought to make privateering piracy by treaty. See as to qualifications, post, § 2833. Under the 9th section of the act of 1790, physical force is unnecessary; but the animus furandi is essential. k II. JURISDICTION. § 2831. United States jurisdiction exists over vessels having no national character, and over our own citizens on board foreign vessels. k1 — The United States courts have jurisdiction under the act of 30th April, 1790, c. 36, of murder or robbery committed on the high seas, although not committed on board a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States; as when she had no national character, but was held by pirates, or persons not lawfully sailing under the flag of any foreign nation. If the offence be committed on board of a foreign vessel by a citizen of the United States, 7 or on board a vessel of the United States by a foreigner, l1 or by a citizen or a foreigner on board a piratical vessel, the offence is equally cognizable by the United States courts. And it is said that, in such a case, it makes no matter whether the offence was committed on the vessel, or on the sea, by throwing a person overboard, and drowning him; or shooting him when in the sea. m All persons, on board all vessels which throw off their national character, by cruising piratically, are within the act. n But it is clear that piracies committed on land, or in the waters over which any particular state of the United States has jurisdiction, are not cognizable, under the act, by the United States courts. o The same limitation was adopted, after a careful review of the authorities, by the late learned Judge Hopkinson, in a case which is understood to have received the concurrence of his associate, Judge Baldwin. p It is true that it was once thought that, under the acts of 30th April, 1790, sects. 8, 9, and 10; of 15th May, 1820, sect. 3; and of 3d March, 1825, acts of piracy, when committed by citizens of a foreign country, in foreign vessels, are not punishable by the j Malek Adel, in re, 2 How. U. S. 210; U. S. v. Tully, 1 Gall. 247. k U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184; U. S. v. Riddle, 4 Wash. C. C. 644. k1 See ante, § 210 b. / Ibid. U. S. v. Peterson, 1 W. & M. 306. m U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheaton, 412. n U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184; U. S. v. Klintoch, 5 Wheat. 144; in this respect qualifying U. S. v. Palmer, supra. o U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheat. 412; Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75. p U. S. v. Kessler, 1 Baldwin, 20. |