there any error in the court's charge to the jury. Burton v. United
States, 344.
6. Interest of United States under § 1782, Rev. Stat.
The United States is interested, either directly or indirectly within the
meaning of § 1782, Rev. Stat., in protecting its mails and postal facili-
ties from improper and illegal use and in enforcing statutes regulating
such use. Ib.
7. Pleading-When plea of autrefois acquit maintainable.
A plea of autrefois acquit must be upon a prosecution for the same identical
offense, and where defendant on a former trial was acquitted of having
received compensation forbidden by § 1782, Rev. Stat., from an indi-
vidual described as an officer of a certain corporation, and at the same
time was found guilty of having received such compensation from the
company, he cannot plead the former acquittal as a bar to a further
prosecution of the charge that he had received such compensation from
the company. Ib.
8. Sentence; effect of, under § 1782, Rev. Stat., to vacate seat of Senator con-
victed.
Including in the sentence of a Senator convicted of an offense under § 1782,
Rev. Stat., that he is rendered forever thereafter incapable of holding
any office of trust or emolument of office under the Government of
the United States is simply a recital of the effect of the conviction,
and the conviction does not operate ipso facto to vacate his seat or
compel the Senate to expel him or to regard him as expelled. Ib.
9. Separate offenses under § 1782, Rev. Stat.
Under § 1782, Rev. Stat., an agreement to receive compensation, whether
received or not for the prohibited services, is made one offense, and the
receiving of compensation, whether in pursuance of a previous agree-
ment or not, is made a separate and distinct offense. Ib.
10. Review-Jurisdiction of this court in habeas corpus.
Where petitioner's term of imprisonment has expired, but he is still con-
fined until a fine of $100 and costs has been paid, and there is nothing
in the record to show whether it has been collected on execution as
authorized by the sentence, but if not collected or collectible the peti-
tioner can shortly be discharged on taking the poor debtor's oath, the
case is practically a moot one, upon which the time of this court should
not be spent. Conceding the full jurisdiction of this court in habeas
corpus, and although the writ has been granted, in view of the special
circumstances therein involved, in a case similar in some respects to
the one at bar, it is a question in every case whether the exercise of
that jurisdiction is appropriate. The ordinary procedure for correction
of errors in criminal cases by writ of error should be pursued unless
special circumstances call for a departure therefrom; and so held in
regard to a petition for habeas corpus of one convicted in a District
Court of the United States for selling liquor to Indians in Indian country
who could and should have proceeded by writ of error from the Circuit
Court of Appeals. In re Lincoln, 178.
See CONGRESS, B 1;
JURISDICTION, B 2; E.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 4.
CUSTOM AND USAGE.
See BOUNDARIES, 2.
1. Imports from Cuba; accrual of right to reduction of duties.
Under the treaty between the United States and Cuba of December 11,
1902, and the act of Congress of December 17, 1903, imports from Cuba
were not entitled to reduction of duties imposed by the tariff act of
July 24, 1897, until December 27, 1903, the date proclaimed by the
President of the United States and the President of Cuba for the com-
mencement of the operation of the treaty. United States v. American
Sugar Co., 563.
2. Rate of duty on goods in bonded warehouse withdrawn for consumption.
Under § 20 of the Customs Administrative Act as amended December 15,
1902, 32 Stat. 753, merchandise in bonded warehouse on which duties
are paid and permits for delivery issued to the storekeeper is thereupon
withdrawn from consumption and subject to rate of duty in force at that
time; this is not affected by the fact that the merchandise may remain
in the warehouse after such permit is issued and if directly exported
the owner will under § 2977, Rev. Stat., be entitled to drawbacks.
Under § 20 of the Customs Administrative Act merchandise in bonded
warehouse is subject to the rate of duty in force at the time of with-
drawal for consumption and not to the rate in force at time of liquida-
tion. Cuban sugar in bonded warehouse on which duty was paid and
for which withdrawal permits were issued and delivered to the store-
keeper prior to December 27, 1903, but which remained in the ware-
house after that date were, subject to full duty, and not entitled to
the 20% reduction under the act of December 17, 1903, and the treaty
with Cuba. Franklin Sugar Co. v. United States, 580.
See ADMIRALTY, 2;
BONDS;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
It is a valuable feature of equity jurisdiction to anticipate and prevent
threatened injury, and in this case an injunction was properly issued to
restrain a municipality from erecting its own water system during the
continuance of an exclusive franchise owned by complainant. Vicks-
burg v. Waterworks Co., 453.
See ADMIRALTY, 3;
CONTRACTS, 3, 4;
JURISDICTION, C 3.
ESTATES OF DECEDENTS.
See TESTAMENTARY LAW.
ESTOPPEL.
See NATIONAL BANKS, 2.
EVIDENCE.
See COURTS, 2;
CRIMINAL LAW, 5;
NATIONAL BANKS, 3, 4.
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1, 2.
FELLOW SERVANT.
See MASTER AND SERVANT, 3.
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
See PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
FRANCHISES.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2;
CORPORATIONS;
LOCAL LAW (Miss.).
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.
See NATIONAL BANKS, 3.
GOVERNMENT.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
See CONTRACTS, 3.
HABEAS CORPUS.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 10;
JURISDICTION, A 2; B.1.
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.
See JURISDICTION, A 8.
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
IMPORTS.
See CUSTOMS DUTIES.
1. Jurisdiction of Court of Claims under Cherokee Acts of 1902, 1903.
Under sec. 68 of the Cherokee Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 726, as con-
strued by the act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 996, and the agreement of
December 19, 1891, providing for the sale of the Cherokee outlet, the
Court of Claims had jurisdiction of all claims of the Cherokee Indians
against the United States, and the claims were to be reopened and reëx-
amined de novo, and the court and the accountants were to go behind
statutory and treaty bars and receipts in full, and were to consider any
alleged and declared amount of money promised but withheld under
any treaty or law.
United States v. Cherokee Nation, 101.
2. Liability of United States to Cherokee Nation.
The United States, as stated in the Slade & Bender account made under
the agreement of December 19, 1891, and as found by the Court of
Claims, is liable to the Cherokee Nation for $1,111,284.70, the amount
paid for the removal of the Eastern Cherokee Indians to the Indian
Territory, improperly charged to the treaty fund. Ib.
3. Allowance of interest on treaty fund as to Cherokee Indians under award
of Senate as arbitrator.
The question whether interest should be allowed on this fund having been
submitted, under the Eleventh Article of the Cherokee Treaty of
1846, to the Senate of the United States, and that body having by
resolution found that interest should be allowed at five per cent from
June 12, 1838, until paid, the amount of interest was one of the sub-
jects of difference referred to the Court of Claims under the act of
July 1, 1902, and that court had jurisdiction to allow interest, and
correctly awarded it at the rate, and from the time specified, in the
Senate resolution. Ib.
4. Meaning of Cherokee "Tribe" as distinguished from "Nation."
The term, Cherokee Tribe or any band thereof, as used in the act of July 1,
1902, means the Cherokee people as a people, and not the Cherokee
Nation as a body politic, and the Court of Claims correctly decided
that the amount awarded to the Cherokee Nation be paid to the Secre-
tary of the Interior to be by him received and distributed to the per-
sons entitled thereto, but such distribution should be made as to the
Eastern Cherokees as individuals whether East or West of the Mississ-
ippi, parties to the treaties of 1835, 1836 and 1846, exclusive of the
Old Settlers. Ib..
|