The District Attorney may make a mistake. He may suppose that what is charged in the indictment is a violation of a particular statute when it is not. The indictment will be good for all that, if what it says the accused did constitutes a violation of some other Federal statute.1

Not only

64. Such Statute Must Be Constitutional. must an indictment or information charge the defendant with having broken a Federal statute, but that statute must be one which Congress had the constitutional power to enact. The right of the United States to punish at all depends either upon the nature of the thing done or upon its having been done in a particular place.

65. Congress Can Provide for the Punishment of One Who Anywhere Interferes with the Exercise of & Power Given to the Federal Government.-Most of the powers granted the Federal Government may be exercised without other territorial limitations than those imposed by international law. Congress can declare that anyone who anywhere interferes with the exercise of any of its powers will commit a crime, and it can fix the punishment therefor. For example: Congress has the power to establish postoffices and post roads. It may provide for the punishment of anyone who in any way interferes with the mails or who tries to send, through the mails, things which it says shall not be so sent. Congress has no power to punish one man for obtaining property from another by false pretenses, unless, perhaps, the transaction is a part of interstate commerce. It can say that no one with intent to cheat another shall put any letter into the mails at Baltimore. It will make no difference whether the letter so mailed is directed to an address in the same city or to one in Seattle; the offense against the Federal laws has been equally committed in either case.

66. How Far May Congress Go to Prevent Interference With the Exercise of Federal Power?-How far may Congress go to prevent interference with the proper

1 Williams vs. United States, 168 U. S. 382.

exercise of a Federal power? For example, may it punish anyone who at any place assaults a Federal official who is not at the moment engaged in any official duty?

Immediately after the assassination of President McKinley this question was much discussed. The controversy is referred to now merely because it illustrates the rule that an act done within territory over which the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States does not extend cannot be made a crime by Congress unless it may in the fair exercise of the legislative discretion be supposed to obstruct the exercise of some of the powers committed to the Federal Government.

Those who are interested in the question of how far the United States may go in protecting its officials will find entertainment as well as profit in reading In re Neagle.1

The career of JUDGE TERRY, who was shot down by Deputy Marshall Neagle at the moment he was about to attempt to kill JUSTICE FIELD, of the Supreme Court, and that of his wife, better, if not more favorably, known by one of her former names, as Sarah Althea Hill, were as full of thrilling adventures as were those of any of the heroes or villians of Dumas.2

67. Power of Congress to Punish Crimes Committed in Particular Localities.-In the territories of the United States, in the District of Columbia and in all those numerous places ceded to the United States by the consent of the States for the purposes of the Federal Government, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. Over them it has all the powers of any other sovereign legislature, limited only by the restrictions in favor of individual liberty imposed by the Constitution of the United States. By the express language of the Constitution its jurisdiction is exclusive. If two men get

1135 U. S. 1.

2 Sharon vs Hill, 20 Fed. 1, 22 Fed. 28, 23 Fed. 353, 24 Fed. 726, 26 Fed. 337, 26 Fed. 722; Sharon vs. Terry, 36 Fed. 337; In re Terry, 36 Fed. 419; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; Terry vs. Sharon, 131 U. S. 40.

into an altercation in the Postoffice Building in Baltimore, or if a civilian commits any offense within the grounds of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, the offenders are punishable by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and by it alone.

68. Offenses Against Federal Laws Can Be Punished by the District Court Only.-It is quite possible that Congress might confer upon the United States Commissioners powers to deal summarily with petty offenses;1 out of tender regard for the liberty of the citizen it has never done so. One who commits a trivial assault or breach of the peace in any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States must be proceeded against in the United States District Court for the district. He cannot be put on trial until an indictment or information has been returned against him. A fine of from $1 to $5 may be adequate punishment for anything that he has done. It may be impossible for the Government to punish him at all unless at an expenditure fifty or a hundred times as great. The national legislature may in this matter have acted wisely. In exceptional cases the result may be unfortunate. A poor and friendless person may be charged with some trifling offense; and may be unable to give bail; it may be days, weeks or, in exceptional circumstances, months before his case can be disposed of. If the committing magistrate were authorized to pass upon the issues involved, the guilt or innocence of the accused might be at once determined. If found guilty he might be less severely punished than he will in fact be, if he be held in prison until he is acquitted by the District Court.

69. Places Within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government Rapidly Increasing.-At every session of Congress there is a determined effort to pass what is known as a Public Buildings Bill; that is a bill providing for the

1

Callan vs. Wilson, 127 U. S 555; Lawton vs. Steele, 152 U. S. 141; Schick vs. United States, 195 U. S. 65.

crection of Federal buildings in many different cities and towns. It is frequently successful.

By the Act of March 4, 1913, such provision was made for somewhere between 160 and 170 new structures. The Federal Government acquires exclusive criminal jurisdiction over all sites purchased for such purposes with the consent of the State legislature.

70. Whether a Crime is Committed Within State or Federal Jurisdiction is Sometimes a Difficult Question of Fact.—In a particular case it may be difficult to determine whether the State or the Federal Government has jurisdic tion.

There is in the grounds of the State House at Annapolis a statue of the Baron de Kalb. It was erected by the United States. The State of Maryland1 ceded to the United States as a site for it a plot of ground 24 feet square. It might not always be easy to say whether an offense was committed within or without the narrow confines of this piece of ground.

71. Whether a Crime is Committed Within the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the United States is Sometimes an Important Question.-That may be the very question which it is important to determine. For example: A group of men may be standing near the DeKalb statue. The pocket of one of them may be picked. The offender may be caught. He may be sentenced to fifteen years in the State penitentiary if the offense was committed outside of the 24 feet square. If within it the maximum penalty will be ten

years.

Before January 1st, 1910, when the Federal Penal Code went into effect, one year's imprisonment was the severest punishment which could have been inflicted upon any one convicted of larceny within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

Some years earlier, a famous professional criminal while in the Postoffice in Baltimore, stole the satchel of a runner

1Acts of 1884, Chapter 339.

of the Merchants National Bank. He was arrested, tried and convicted. He received the maximum penalty. That was only one year. Had he taken the same satchel on the west side of Calvert Street instead of on the east he might have been sent to the penitentiary for fifteen.

For

Other interesting questions of jurisdiction arise. example: A number of years ago a somewhat intoxicated sailor from a United States war ship provoked a controversy with two residents of Annapolis. While he was scuffling with one of them the other shot him. He died in a few minutes. When the buliet struck him, he was on one of the grass plots forming part of the Postoffice site of Annapolis. The man who fired was at the moment outside of the lines of that lot on one of the public streets of the town and therefore within the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland. It is a principle of the common law that in such cases the offense is committed where it takes effect. The man who fired the fatal shot was accordingly tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. If his trial had taken place in a State Court he doubtless would have been convicted of murder in the second degree. That was punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for from five to eighteen years.

Prior to 1897 any one convicted in the United States Courts of murder was punished with death. Between 1897 and 1910 the jury were allowed to return a verdict of guilty of murder, but without capital punishment. If they did the convict was sent to the penitentiary for life. In this Annapolis case the jury found a verdict of guilty of murder, without capital punishment. The prisoner was necessarily given a life sentence.

Since the Penal Code went into effect, a person indicted for murder may be found guilty in either the first or the second degree. The penalty for the former is death unless the jury qualify their verdict by the addition of the words "without capital punishment." For the latter it can not be

1 United States vs. Davis, 25 Fed. Cases, 786 (No. 14932).

2 Section 273, 35 Stat. 1143.