UNITED STATES". EAGAN.
sta.nces,tbe·reasonable rule being to give that effect to the act which it shall appear from the words used, and the object to .be accomplished, that the legislature wished should be done. Nor is the rule of strict construction for penal acts against this method of interpretation. U. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396; U. S. v. Mattock, 2 Sawy. 148, 151; TM Bolioo; 1 Gall. 76, 83; U. Winn, 3 Sum. 209. In the last case cited Mr. Justice STORY construed this very statute, arid, upon similar reason'" ing to that 1 have used, held that the chief officer next below the captain or mar:;ter was under the protection of the statute as one of the Upon the whole, I am satisfied that anyone who by authority exercises the function of command over the actions of the crew while on duty, or of any of them, is an officer pro hac vice, and liable to the penaltiesof this statute, as such, if he violate its provisions. So construed, the statute secures the purpose of congress to protect the. seamen or ",l'Ouster8," and all on board who, being of the Crew; are under the bondage of.obedience to authority, from any abuse of that authority; w.bile the more .restricted construction would permit the evil to continut:l by allowing the "officers" to delegate the beating and wounding to lings having all the power of, ,official place, with the right to j,t, and yet. .no responsibility; such as this statute iDlpQses. the master ever had the power to punish, or has ·now, but if any assume it by ,virtue of his office. be that office what it may; thereby hebe'Qomes, to alUnten.tB and purposes of this statute, amenable to the COD. sequences, if he abuse that power which he The defeudant will be held, to answer.
(OWouU Oourt, E. D. .Miuouri, E. D. March 29, 188'7.)
Under.1he registration law,applicable to the ,citY' 01S1;. LatHs, Missouri, (Sesil. Laws .Mo. ·l883,p. 88,) a deputy i-ecorder of 'Voters for a ward of said city is not obliged to register apersdn merely becaule he applies forregistration /IoDd takes the oath prescribed 1?Y seclion 8 of said act. Such officer may reject ap. applicant (or registration who has taken the oath, if helli aware the.t the applicant ha:snottruly stated in'his oath and entered on the relPstration book the number of his residence. .Accordingly held, that· an. indIctD1e!ltunder of thE! Revised Statutesof·the United States against · deputy recorder of voters for a ward of said city was not demurrable which charged that said officer, at a registration fora congressional elec1ion;knowlngly and' willfully registered oneA.B. as a duly.qualUied voter· then and there residing at nJJ,mber"207 North 12th street," in U1eTenth ward, he, the laid defendant, well knowing that said ,... B. did not reside at said number, and Was not, entitled to be registered therefrom. Held, fu?·theI',tbat although $beappliQant for regiatralion resided in the Tenth ward and was a qQalified voter therein, the officer could not la.wfully pel;'Ulit h,im tl;) reglllter orregtster' him froDl a atreet number in aaidward wliere h.' did not re8id.; " .' o(S,Ualru. bI/ ,eM Ooun.)
VOTJIl:B&-REGISTRATION-DUTIE8 OF RECORDl\lR .Ol!': V()'fJ!lB8.
On,aemurrer to indictment under Rev. St. U. S. § 5512, for fraud, ulent ,registration. ,'J.'hornaaP. Bashaw and D. P. Dyer, for the United States. 0.' MarshaU, for defendant.
THAYER, J . This indictment is framed under that Clause of section 5512,Rev. St. U. S.,which makes it an offense if any,officer of registration l'knowinglyand willfully registers as a voter any person.not entitled to', M registered.'" The statute concerns the act of the officer in knowingly .permitting,the name of a person to be placed on the' registration book hi'his charge, ·when the persords not entitled to be so; registered. Ati'indictment'uhder,this clause ohection5512; which merely used the language 'ofithe statute, that, the dMendant knowinglyand.Jwillfullyregistiered A.B. as. a; voter, he, the said A. fl., not being entitled to be regis;. tared; 8:S 'defendantwellkriew,would be clearly bad.·:The defendant should ha'\l'e notice of the 'ptecise charge he is called upon; to meet.;' 'Tile indiotment;' besides using the language of 'the statute,: show tM ground; of the :voter'sdisqualification"to ,be regi8tered; as' that,he is a minoi',a non-resident of. the PTeoincv,.aHen, or some otlier ground of disqttalifrcation. ,So much may' beeohceded. The indictment now before tis 'employS"the 'statlitoryianguage aboverecited,bull it specifies no matter disqualifying the'votel' from having his name put on the lil?t, as'it ;wft!lplaced;, excepttha:t he'did notl'eside at 12th St.," the place of residence specitied on theregistration' book. ,Foraught this indictment shows, he may have been; a person possessing all the qualifications of a voter within the precinct where registered; such as age, citizenship, etc. The precise question we have to'determine, then, is whether, when the voter presented himself to the defendant for registration, and gave his street," and took the statplace of residence as ",No. utory oath, ,which, among other things, required him to state that he lived at thephtce'he had designatl'ld in the registration book, the defendant could rightfully accept him as a voter residing at such number -;:-that is, to say permit him 'to 'enter his name on the book, as of such whttp.)n point of fact defe+ldant knew, as the indictment eharges, that the address given by ,the voter was false. .In other words, the question is whether such act 'qn,the defendant's part was, within the meaning ofthe federal statqta, (I}ection 5512,) registering a voter not ' entitled to be registered. It has heen' urged that, under 'the act concerning the registration of voters, applicable to the city. Qf St. Louis, (vidt! Sess. Laws Mo. 1883, p. 38,) a recorder or voters is obliged to accept and register any W}lO tak,es the, llrescribed by the third section of :aaid act; .that a person who, takes the oath is wit40ut let or hin'deranoe.1 registrationoffi.()er isconcemed. ;'.l')J.is "',The,recorder and, depu of voters are officers appointed to examine and pass upon the qualifications of voters. To this end they are authorized to administer both the oath
UNITED STATES V.EAGAN.
required of voters by the third section of the. act, "and all other oaths necessary in the registra:tion of voters," (vide sections 5, 11, Sess. Laws Mo. 1883, pp. 40, 41.) The functions of recorders of voters are active, not passive.' The act in question clearly contemplates that they may refuse, and that it is their duty to refuse, to register persons not entitled to be registered or not entitled to be registered from places where they apply for registration, (vide section 7, Sess. Laws Mo. 1883;) and they are only subject to prosecution for refusing to register a voter when they "willfully and mflliciously or corruptly refuse to register a person en;. titled to be registered." Vide section 8, Sess. Laws Mo. 1883. lOs furthermore urged thn:t the act in question does not, in terms. require a voter, when for registration, to glve the ber of his residence. Hence it is argued that if the number of his resia!:l. by a voter but the voter nevertheless resilies within the preCinct where he offers to register, and possesses thequl\1ifl:cations of III voter, the recorder or deputy-recorde:\,' may lawfully regi,shir him, although the number of the voter's residence is is known to be erroneous to the registration officer. It is even contended it is the recorder's d:uty, under such circumstances, to accept the . voter. This position we regard as equally untenable. ' The third'section of the act above referred to·prescribes a· form pf reg. istrationbook to be used, wherein are contained appropriate columns fortha narnesand residences of the voters. The oath taken by the voter requires him to state that he lives at the place designated by him in the registration 'bi>ok. Section 7 of the act makes it a felony to willfully register' at:a place or number of a street where the voter does not re.. side. In view of all these provisions, it is obvious that a voter under the state laws is not entitled to be registered at a place within a precinct where he does not reside, and that a registration officer is authorized, and that it is his duty, under the state laws, to refuse to register a voter as of a place where he does not reside. Certainly the act nevercontemplated that a recorder should accept a registration with knowledge that the person applying for registration bad committed a felony in placing his name on the list of voters. It is also obvious that if, with knowl-, edge that 'a voter has given a false residence, he accepts him, or suffers him to· be home on the registration book as a voter residing at a place where he does not reside, he becomes guilty of the offense described in the federa.l statutes, (section 5512,)-of registering a person not entitled to be registered. The demurrer niustbe overrUled. It is so ordered. v.80F.no.7-82
UNITED STATES V. EAGAN.
(Oircuit Oourt·. ,E. D, HialOuri, B. D. March 28,
I,>la\linga number of fictitious names on the registration list at the same time and place constitutes but one offense.
'Anindicttnent charging that the defendant "entered and registered seven namesae names of persons who had then and there applied to him * * * to be registered, "etc., "when, in truth and in fact, no persons represented by said names 'had applied to him, or taken the oath," etc., is neither uncertain nor repugnant; ,
On Special Demurrer. Indictment under Rev. St. registration. Thomd8 P.' Ba8ha'W and D.' P. Dyer, for the United '0. Marshall, for
.0. S. § 5512, for
THAYER, J. The demurrer in this case is special,and the count. of the indictment, on the ground-First, .that it states more than one offense in the same count; second, that the ofthecount are repugnant;, and, third" that they are so vague apoq inconsistentthl;\t defendarit is not advised of the precise charge he is called upon to meet, and cannot prepare for trial. The count to which exceptions are taken.. in substance charges the defendant (who was a deputy-recorder of voters in the tenth ward of the city of St. Louis) with having placed on the registration book in his cutltody seven names as names of persons who had appeared before him and taken the oath required of voters, and applied for registration, when, in truth and in fact, no such personsappeared Of took oath, or applied to be registered, " In other words,the eharge is that of placing fictitious names on the registration lists. ' It is urged that, because the indictment in one:C011nt charges the entryon the lists Of seven fictitious names, that it therefore states as many separate and independent offenses. This. would be true; no doubt, if the seven names were placed on the. lists oil different occasions; that is, on -different days. But inasmuch as the indictment shows. that the names were so entered at the same time and place I to-wit, on September 1,1886, we are of the opinion that it constitutes butane offense, and is properly eharged as such. The unity of the offense is not broken by the number of alleged fictitious names so pIacedon the Jist&, whether it 'be one . or seven, so long as the act is single; that is, doria at the same, time and place. The other points of the demurrer are even less tenable. The eharge contained in the count is plainly that defendant" entered and reg-istered seven names as names of persons * * * who had then and there applied to him * * * to be registered," etc.· when, "in truth and in fact, no persons represented by said names had applied to him, or had taken the oath," etc.