CHAPTER XLI. BRIBERY. Bribery, or attempt at bribery, is a mis- Corroboration required to convict, § 1859. demeanor at common law, § 1857. CORRUPTION, So far as it concerns the misconduct, active or passive, of the officer corrupted, has been already independently noticed.1 At present will be singly considered bribery as it relates to the person offering the bribe.2 Bribery, or attempt at bribery, is a misdemeanor at common law. § 1857. Bribery as a common law offence is defined by Blackstone to be where a judge or other person connected with the administration of justice seeks an undue reward to influence his behavior in office. Sir W. Russell extends it to all cases where any undue reward is received or offered by or to any person whatsoever, whose ordinary business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity.5 To attempt to bribe, even though the offence be not consummated, is a misdemeanor at common law.6 And the offence is complete when an offer is made, although in a matter not within the jurisdiction of the officer. 1 Supra, § 1570. 2 As to attempts see supra, § 179. As to indictment see State v. Walls, 54 Ind. 561. For federal statutes see Rev. Stat. U. S. §§ 5449 et seq. 8 4 Blac. Com. 139. It is not bribery for a person who is a candidate for public office to offer to give a certain portion of his salary, if elected, to the county treasurer, unless it appear that the persons addressed would in So far as concerns judicial officers, some way be benefited by the offer. 5 R. v. Beale, cited in R. v. Gibbons, 1 East, 183. Supra, § 1572. 62 Russ. on Cr. 124. Supra, § 179; Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 58; Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 294. See Barefield v. State, 14 Ala. 603. 7 State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102. it has been stated generally that "Every gift or payment made in respect of, or in relation to, any business having been, being, or about to be transacted before any such person in his office is a bribe, whether it is given in order to influence the judicial officer in something to be done, or to reward him for something already done, and whether the thing done or to be done is itself proper or improper."1 § 1858. In conformity with these views, it has been held indictable at common law to be concerned either as actor or receiver in the bribery or attempt at bribery of a voter at any governmental election; 2 of a cabinet minister and member of the privy council; of a commissioner of the revenue; of a member of the state legislature;5 of a member of a municipal board ;6 of a justice of the peace, even though the case in which the bribe is offered is not yet instituted; of a judicial officer of any grade; and of a sheriff, to induce him to summon jurors to be nominated by the defendant. And the same rule has been applied to a corrupt agreement between A. and B., that A. shall vote for C. as commissioner, in consideration that B. will vote for D. as clerk.10 An offer by a public officer to receive a bribe is an indictable offence.11 To constitute bribery, a mere present after the act, without a corrupt prior understanding, will not suffice.12 1 Steph. Dig. Cr. L. art. 126, to which is appended the following note: 3 Inst. 144-8; 1 Hawk. P. C. 414-5; 5th Rep. C. L. C. 20-1. See, too, Spedding's Life of Bacon, vii. 209-78. The crime is so rare that the definition is very imperfect and more or less conjectural. 2 R. v. Pitt, 3 Burr. 1335; R. v. Plympton, 2 Ld. Raym. 1377; R. v. Taggart, 1 C. & P. 201; R. v. Joliffe, 1 East, 154, n.; Com. v. Shaver, 3 W. & S. 338; State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102; Com. v. Callaghan, 2 Va. Cas. 460. See Russell v. Com. 3 Bush, 469. Supra, § 1572. 8 Vaughan's case, 4 Burr. 2494. 4 U. S. v. Worrell, Wh. St. Tr. 139. 5 Com. v. McCook, cited in Whart. Prec. 1012, n. For Pennsylvania constitutional provision see Judge Pearson's charge, 7 Weekly Notes, 306. State v. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102. 7 Barefield v. State, 14 Ala. 603. 138. 10 Com. v. Callaghan, 2 Va. Cas. 460. Supra, § 1375. 11 Supra, § 1572; Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 88; but see Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 293. 12 Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 293. See supra, § 1572. Embracery is considered in another volume.1 tion when more than § 1859. When a statute requires that a conviction Corroborafor bribery shall not be had on the testimony of a single witness, without corroborating circumstances, the corroboratory evidence must go directly to the fact of the bribe.2 a single required. witness is him to be more favorable to the one side than to the other, in any judicial proceeding, whether any verdict is given or not, and whether such verdict, if given, is true or false." Steph. Dig. Cr. L. art. 128. 2 Russell v. Com. 3 Bush, 469. 591 vessels without national character, VII. INDICTMENT. III. WHAT IS COMPLICITY. All aiding are principals, § 1863. Piracy is I. DEFINITION. Venue must be in admiralty, § 1867. Count for larceny may be joined, § 1868. Proper technical averments to be made, § 1869. § 1860. AT common law 1 piracy was not a felony,2 but statutes were passed at an early period making the offence robbery at highly penal. By these statutes piracy is an act of robbery, and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony; or, to adopt a fuller definition, a pirate is one who roves the sea in an sea. 1 U S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 161; U. S. v. Pirates, Ibid. 184. See a learned and comprehensive note to U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 163-180, which is now known to have been written by Mr. Justice Story, who delivered the opinion of the court in that case. 1 Story's Life of Story, 283; U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610. 3 2 R. v. Morphas, 1 Salk. 85. 8 This, however, is defective, from the indefiniteness of the term "felony." Mere larceny on the high seas does not make piracy, though robbery does. 4 U. S. v. Baker, 5 Blatch. 6. armed vessel, without a commission from any State, upon his own authority, for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating any vessel he may meet.1 Piracy, therefore, is robbery within the jurisdiction of the admiralty.2 The German and French authorities concur substantially in this view. By them piracy (Seeraub, or Sea Robbery, Piraterie) consists, by the law of nations, in an attack, in the nature of robbery as distinguished from larceny, by an uncommissioned vessel of war on trading vessels on the high seas. Whether there must be the lucri causa was originally doubted; though now by the more recent jurists this element is held not necessary.3 Under the 9th section of the Act of 1790, physical force is unnecessary; 4 but the animus furandi is essential.5 The Revised Statutes give no definition; it being simply declared that "Every person who on the high seas commits the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall suffer death." 6 by foreign ers as well as citizens. § 1861. Piracy is extended in England to the following cases: (1.) When a subject of her majesty commits any May be act of hostility or robbery against others, her majes- committed ty's subjects, on the sea, or in any place where the admiral has jurisdiction, under color of any commission from any foreign prince or State, whether such prince or State is at war with her majesty or not, or under pretence of authority from any person whatever; or, (2.) Being a subject of her majesty, during any war is in in any way adherent to or gives aid or comfort to her majesty's enemies upon the sea, or in any place where the admiral has jurisdiction; or, (3.) Belonging to any ship or vessel whatever (whether he is the subject of her majesty or not), upon meeting any British merchant ship or vessel on the sea, or in any place where the 1 See also Davison v. Seal-skins, Sur la piraterie, in his works, iii. 2 Paine, 324. 335. 2 Atty. Gen. v. Kivok-a-Sing, L. R. 5 P. C. 180. See Judge Nelson's Opinion in the trial of the Savannah Pirates, Pamph. N. Y. Heffter. Völkerr, § 104; Broglie, VOL. II. 38 4 Malek Adhel, in re, 2 How. 210; U. S. v. Tully, 1 Gall. 247. 5 U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 183; U. S. v. Riddle, 4 Wash. C. C. 644. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5368. 593 |