affbr9sprotection a,nd a safe asylum to honest, upright, and lille11itqd"ring people, it has the right to demand,· ()1Il. their part, obedrence; ttHawand respeetfor our international obligatibns; and although'a eitizen, or other person living under of American institutions, may enjoy the utmost liberty, consistent with public order" yet that liberty is a liberty regulated by law. It is not an unrestra.il1ed license. conferred upon an individual, to violate the law With impunity; and thus produce anarchy at home, or, as the case may be,imperil the amicable relations which may subsist between ol1rowngovernment and that of a friendly foreign power. Men must obey the law. else the social fabric falls. Independent states and nations must discharge their international obligations to each other, if they desire the maintenance of peace, and the continuan-ce of friendly interoourse. The evidence in this case makes it manifest that the· executive department of the federal government, with the active MSistance and co-ope'ration of the state authorities, has performed its duty in the endeavor to prevent a. violation of· the neutrality laws, by dispersing armed bodies of men, who,from the inception o:f the Garza movement until recently, infested the lower portion of this judicial district, and by aiding in the arrest of numerous persons supposed to be offenders against the statute. Let us, also, gentlemen, perform the duty assigned to us. The defendant now on trial is charged. with a violation of this law, and it is for you to say whether he is guilty or innocent of the offense. Give the case a fair, candid, and jmpartial hearing. If he be innocent, do not hesitate so to declare. But if, under the evidence and foregoing instructions, you deem him guilty, then so say by your verdict. The case is now remitted to· your keeping. Take it, and render· such a verdict as may be just both to the government and the defendant.
partUllif!yj but fearlessly and·' with firmness. While our own
UNITED STATES v. BRADFORD.
(District Court, D. South Carolina. January 6, 1893.)
FALSE PRETENSEs-INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
Under Act April 18, 1884,. making it a felony to falsely pretend to be an officer or employe of the United States, with intent to defraud the United St'ltes or any person, where an indictment charges such falli'e personation in order to defraud the United States or a certain railroad company, it must be shown, to authorize a con"iction, that defendant, to eonsummate his fraudulent intent, 80 falsely represented himself to some agent of the government, or to some agjnt of the railroad company.
At Law. Indictment against Samuel J. Bradford for viollition of Act April 18, 1884. Verdict of not guilty. B. A. Hagood. Asst. U. So At.ty. Samuel Lord, for defendant. SUIONTON, District Judge. The defendant is indicted under the act of congress approved 18th April, 1884, (23 St. p. 11,) falsely and fraudulently pretending and assuming to be an employe of the United States in order ro defraud the United States or the Northeastern
UNITED STATES II. HURSHMAN.
RMlroad Company.. The admitted facts in the case are that on the morning of 19th December, 1892, Mr. Waring, postal clerk, was in his postal car. at the depot of the Northeastern Railroad in Charleston. After assort.ing his mail, and while resting, he discovered the de· fendant concealing himself in a dark corner of the car. As soon as he discovered him, he sprung up and seized him'by the collar. That defendantsaid at once, "I am Bradford, and in the service." Waring denying that he was in t.he service, defendant then said, ''1 have been discharged, but I am trying to steal a ride to Florence." War· ing had an officer caJ.led,by whom defendant was arrested. In order to convict the defendant under this act, it must appear that he had formed. ,an intent to defraud either the United States or the North· .eaStern Railroad CoIllpany;and that,to carry out .this intent,-that is to say,as. the of consummating his intent,-he falsely pre· tended to, be an employe of the United States. If it was his intent to defraridthe United States, it must be shown by evidence that he fa}ijely pretendedto be such an employeto some agent.of the govern· ment, in order, this false personation, to consummate his inc tent, , If his intent were to defraud the railroad company, then he must hare represented falsely to some agent of the railroad company that he was an employe of the United States. These essent.ial elamentsare wanting in this case. The jury must find the defendant not guilty
UNITED STATES v. HURSHMAN. (District Court, D. Washington, S. D.
INDIANS-SALES OF LIQUOR.
November 16, 1892.)
Rev. St. § 2139, provides that every person who disposes of spirituous liquors to any Indian "under the charge of any Indian supelintendent or agent * .. * shall be punished. * >I< *" Held, that an Indian of the Nez Perces tribe, a soldier in the United States army, 18 within the meaning of the statute.
At Law. Charles Hurshman was accused of the offense of unlawfully disposing of spirituous liquor to an Indian, under Rev. St. § 2139, and held to answer therefor by a United States commissioner. The grand jury, being uncertain as to whether or not the facts shown by the testimony of the witnesses for the government brought the case within the statute, made a special presentment of the case. The court, being of the opinion that the presentment contained all the requisites of an indictment, caused the defendant to be arraigned, and required him to plead thereto, which he did, first by a demurrer, and afterwards by a plea of not guilty. Demurrer overruled. Trial. and verdict of not guilty. Patrick Henry Winston, U. S. Atty. H. S. Blandford, for defendant. District Judge. Although the defendant has been acquitted, and this particular case is no longer of importance, the question upon the demutTer is new, and merits a concise and precise