286
The Green Bag,
BRIBERY. (MEMBER OF CONGRESS — LIMITATIONS.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, EAST ERN DIVISION OF NEW YORK.
It is so abhorrent to moral and legal concep tions, so inimical to plain reason, that some technical rules, elsewhere wholesome and properly applied, but now skillfully invoked by defendants' counsel, must be broken through and discarded, and ultimate vital judgments allowed to prevail. If any one shall decide, or has decided, that a statute may be interpreted to denounce an agree ment as impossible of worthy existence, and after it has come forbidden into the light, declare that it has such worthiness that it may be regarded as 'property' or 'other val uable consideration/ for the purposes of the same statute, the responsibility of such de cision shall not rest upon this court." The court holds that being rendered illegal by the statute itself, the note did not constitute a valuable consideration, and therefore that the offense was not committed until pay ments under the note were made, which was within the period of limitations.
In United States v. Driggs, 125 Federal Reporter 520, an indictment against a mem ber of Congress for receiving a bribe in vio lation of Rev. St. Sees. 1781 and 1782, is considered. These sections make it a crim inal offense for a congressman to receive any money, property, or other valuable consider ation for aiding in the procuring of any con tract from the government. In this case the defendant was given a nonnegotiable note by a government contractor, promising to pay certain sums as the pro ceeds 01 the contract to be secured were real ized. The note was delivered more than three years prior to the finding of the indict ment and the defendant argued that the crime, if any, was committed at that time and was barred by limitations. On this point the court says: "The instrument was tainted and made worthless by the statute itself. Could the same statute stamp as something BRIBERY. (MEMBER OF CONGRESS— MEM HER ELECT valuable, as property, a writing whose ex —CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.) istence it had inhibited? The statute de UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. clares that a member of Congress shall not agree 'to receive any money, or property, or In United States v. Dietrich, 126 Federal other valuable consideration whatever, from Reporter, page 676, the first of a series of any person, for procuring . . . any con indictments against Senator Dietrich of Ne tract . . . from the government.' If a braska is considered, and the jury were di member of Congress and such person enter rected to return a verdict of not guilty. The into an agreement to do this very statement of the attorney for the prosecu thing, how can the agreement be re tion showed that the acts charged as a viola tion of Rev. St. Sec. 1781, occurred after the garded as property or a valuable con defendant's election, but before the conven sideration? Does the statute refuse the ing of Congress, when he presented his cre agreement life by prohibiting it, and at the dentials and took the oath of office as a Sen same time, upon its interdicted birth, breathe life into it, and give it the characteristics, ator. The statute makes it a punishable of the protection, and the quality of property? . fense for any "member of Congress or any officer or agent of the government," to take According to such argument, the statute or receive, or agree to receive, a bribe for kills and quickens the same agreement at the same instant. It stifles while it animates. It procuring or aiding to procure any contract, office or place for another person from the precludes its existence, and, being defied, at United States, and also makes it a punish taches worth to its reality. Leavened and vitiated by guilt, and imbued and vivified by able offense for any "member of Congress" virtue, by the same statute! One seeks in vain to take, receive or agree to receive a bribe "after his election as such member," for his for fit expression of the contrariety. . . . attention to, service, vote, etc., on any ques The very statement of the defendants' pro position should demonstrate its invalidity. tion then pending or which may be brought
