ARTICLE IV. POSTAL OFFENSES AND OTHER FEDERAL CRIMES.

Chapter

LXVIII.
LXIX.

Other Federal Crimes-Postal Offenses___§ 815
Counterfeiting and Uttering Counterfeit

§ 815. Postal crimes under Federal statutes.-There are various Federal statutes which make criminal certain acts relative to the carrying and delivery of mail.

Obstructing or retarding the transmission of mail is criminal, whether done intentionally or negligently. Examples of this offense are, where a tollgate keeper hinders a mail wagon to obtain payment of toll,2 or the holder of a lien on horses used to draw a mailcoach enforces the lien in a manner to prevent the mail being carried, or where obstructions are placed on a railroad track over which mails are carried

1 United States v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 380; United States v. Claypool, 14 Fed. 127.

2 United States v. Sears, 55 Fed. 268.

3 United States v. Barney, Fed. Cas. No. 14525, 3 Hughes (U. S.) 545, 2 Wheeler Cr. C. 513.

and delay ensues. It seems, therefore, that intent is immaterial in this offense.

Robbery of a carrier of mail is a felony under federal statutes.5

The opening or detaining mail matter is indictable.®

The secreting, embezzlement, or destruction of any mail matter by postal servants and the embezzlement by such servants of any mail containing an article of value are punishable. To constitute this offense, the letter or package must be taken from the custody of the government service, before delivery to a third person.8 A decoy letter which is sent out for the purpose of detecting one who takes articles from the mail may be the subject of embezzlement." It is also criminal by statute to use the mails for fraudulent purposes. 10 10 Sending out circulars to induce persons to send back money or stamps for which no returns were to be made,11 or circulars offering for sale counterfeit money,12 come under this classification.

It is immaterial whether or not the fraud was actually perpetrated,13 but the intent to defraud must have existed.14 Cas. No. 16000, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 104.

• United States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; United States v. Thomas, 55 Fed. 380; United States v. Kane, 19 Fed. 42, 9 Sawy. (U. S.) 614; United States v. Clark, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. (N. Y.) 306.

5 Harrison v. United States, 163 U. S. 140, 41 L. ed. 104.

• United States v. Parsons, Fed. Cas. No. 16000, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 104; United States v. Nutt, Fed. Cas. No. 15904; United States v. Holmes, 40 Fed. 750; United States v. McCready, 11 Fed. 225; Russ. Crimes (9th Am. ed.) 493.

7 United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 33 L. ed. 1080; United States v. Davis, 33 Fed. 865.

8 United States v. Parsons, Fed.

9 United States v. Dorsey, 40 Fed. 752; United States v. Wight, 38 Fed. 106.

10 U. S. Comp. Stat. (1916), § 10385 et seq. See also, Stokes v. United States, 60 Fed. 597.

11 United States v. Whittier, Fed. Cas. No. 16688, 5 Dill. (U. S.) 35; United States v. Stickle, 15 Fed. 798.

12 United States v. Jones, 10 Fed. 469, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 235.

13 Weeber v. United States, 62 Fed. 740; United States v. Mitchell, 36 Fed. 492, 1 L. R. A. 796.

14 United States V. Beach, 71 Fed. 160; United States v. Harris, 68 Fed. 347.

Use of the mails to perpetrate a single isolated fraud is not indictable under this statute.15

The mailing or posting of obscene or indecent matter is indictable, under statutes, 16 and they include the mailing of sealed private letters as well as matter not sealed or books or papers intended for public circulation.17 Obscene matter is such that it tends to deprave and corrupt the minds of those open to immoral influences by exciting lustful and sensual desires.18

The mailing of defamatory or threatening matter is indictable by statute,19 also the mailing of lottery advertisements.20

15 United States v. Owens, 17 Fed. 72, 5 McCrary (U. S.) 307.

16 United States v. Bott, Fed. Cas. No. 14626, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 346; United States v. Chase, 27 Fed.

807.

17 Andrews v. United States, 162 U. S. 420, 40 L. ed. 1023; United States v. Warner, 59 Fed. 355; United States v. Wilson, 58 Fed. 768; United States v. Gaylord, 50 Fed. 410.

18 United States v. Bennett, Fed. Cas. No. 14571, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 338, 2 N. Y. Cr. 284; United States v. Martin, 50 Fed. 918; United

States v. Clarke, 38 Fed. 732; United States v. Harman, 38 Fed. 827.

19 Act of September 26, 1888, ch. 1039, 25 Stat. at Large, 496. See also, United States v. Gee, 45 Fed. 194; United States v. Clark, 43 Fed. 574; United States v. Bayle, 40 Fed. 664, 6 L. R. A. 742; United States v. Pratt, Fed. Cas. No. 16082.

20 In re Jackson, Fed. Cas. No. 7124, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 245; United States v. Moore, 19 Fed. 39; United States v. Duff, 6 Fed. 45, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 9,

§ 818. Definition.-Counterfeiting is making false money in the semblance of that which is genuine.1 Coining or uttering false money is a crime at common law, indictable on the same principles as cheating or forgery. In addition, Federal statutes provide for the punishment of counterfeiting United States money. The principles applicable are very similar to those laid down in the chapter on forgery.2

§ 819. Distinction between Federal and common-law crimes.-The constitution gives to congress power to punish the counterfeiting of the securities and coin of the United States. Under this provision statutes have been enacted, and the crime of counterfeiting, under the Federal statutes, bears a somewhat different aspect from the common-law crime. The Federal courts have complete jurisdiction of the crime under the Federal statutes, but the offense is indict

12 Bish. New Crim. L., § 289; Whart. Crim. L. 11th ed.), § 956. 2 See ante, ch. XXIX.

3 U. S. Const., art. I, § 8.

4 Ex parte Geisler, 50 Fed. 411; Commonwealth v. Fuller, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 313, 41 Am. Dec. 509;

Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.), §§ 307, 955. See also, Linningen v. Morgan, 241 Fed. 645, 154 C. C. A. 403; York v. United States, 241 Fed. 656, 154 C. C. A. 414; Leib v. Halligan, 236 Fed. 82, 149 C. C. A. 292.

able in the state courts as a common-law crime, or under state statutes, as an offense in the nature of a fraud.5

Under the Federal statutes, the crime is the making of something in the similitude of the coin or securities of the United States, and it is essential to the crime that the imitation exists, though it is sufficient if the imitation be calculated to deceive a person using ordinary care. Under some state statutes it is unnecessary to show similitude to genuine coin.8

§ 820. What acts have been held to be counterfeiting.— There is much variation in the language of the different statutes against counterfeiting. Under a statute making it a crime to make an instrument in the similitude of a bill issued by a bank established by law, a note not like that of any known bank, but purely fictitious, is not included; but if the note purports to be issued by a bank having authority, it is not necessary that it imitate any bill which the bank has actually issued.10 Generally, it is held that a token which does not purport to imitate any known coin is not a counterfeit. It is usually held that the offense of making a counterfeit coin is not indictable if anything remains to be done to complete the coin.12 To file off the edges of a true coin, and fraudulently make a new milling, is counterfeiting. 13

11

5 United States v. Hargrave, Fed. Cas. No. 15306; People v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 22 Pac. 190, 13 Am. St. 159; Dashing v. State, 78 Ind. 357; Whart. Am. L., § 524.

6 United States v. Stevens, 52 Fed. 120; United States V. Williams, 14 Fed. 550.

7 United States v. Sprague, 48 Fed. 828.

8 State v. Williams, 8 Iowa 533. 9 State v. McKenzie, 42 Maine 392; Commonwealth v. Morse, 2 Mass. 138.

10 Commonwealth v. Smith, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 137; Trice v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.) 591.

11 United States v. Bogart, Fed. Cas. No. 14617, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 314.

12 United States v. Burns, Fed. Cas. No. 14691, 5 McLean 22, 23; Rex v. Varley, 1 East. P. C. 164; Rex v. Elliott, 1 Leach 175. But see United States v. Abrams, 18 Fed. 823, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 553.

13 Reg. v. Hermann, 14 Cox Cr. C. 279, 4 Q. B. Div. 284.