BRIDGES ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
No. 548
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 4, 1953.—Decided June 15, 1953
346 U.S. 209
John F. Davis argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Beatrice Rosenberg, Carl H. Imlay and John R. Wilkins.
MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this proceeding we are limited to the consideration of the following questions: (1) is it barred by the statute of limitations and, if not, (2) is it barred by the principles of res judicata, or estoppel, or the Due Process Clause of
The issues raised by the first question are:
1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act1 has suspended the running of the general three-year statute of limitations2 in relation to the offenses charged in—
Count I, under the general conspiracy statute;3
Count II, under § 346 (a) (1) of the Nationality Act of 1940;4 or
Count III, under § 346 (a) (5) of the Nationality Act of 1940;5 and
2. Whether the saving clause in § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, which enacted the present Criminal Code into law,6 continued in effect the special five-year statute of limitations of § 346 (g) of the Nationality Act of 19407 in relation to violations of § 346 (a) of that Act.
For the reasons set forth, we reach a negative conclusion on each of the above issues.
Petitioner Harry Bridges entered the United States in 1920 as an immigrant seaman from Australia. Subsequently, he defeated two attempts of the United States to deport him because of his alleged Communist Party membership or affiliation. The second such attempt
June 23, 1945, he applied, in the San Francisco office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for a Certificate of Arrival and a Preliminary Form for Petition for Naturalization. August 8, he appeared, with petitioners Schmidt and Robertson, before an examiner for a preliminary examination. Each of the three testified that Bridges was not a member of the Communist Party.
September 17, 1945, Bridges appeared in the Superior Court in San Francisco for the naturalization hearing. Schmidt and Robertson testified that they had known Bridges for five years or longer, that he was a resident of the United States during that time and that they vouched for his loyalty to the United States. Bridges gave the following answers under oath:
“Q. Do you now, or have you ever, belonged to any organization that advocated the overthrow of the government by force or violence?
“A. No.
“Q. Do you now, or have you ever, belonged to the Communist Party in the United States?
“A. I have not, I do not.”
He was then admitted to citizenship.
May 25, 1949, more than three years later, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California returned the present indictment in three counts.
Count I charges the three petitioners with a conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the proper administration of its naturalization laws by having Bridges fraudulently petition for and obtain naturalization by falsely and fraudulently stating to the naturalization court that he had never belonged to the Communist Party in the United States, and that
That count is laid under the following general conspiracy statute:
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” § 37 of the old Criminal Code, 35 Stat. 1096,
18 U. S. C. § 88 , now18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 371 .
Count II charges Bridges with wilfully and knowingly making a false statement under oath in the naturalization proceeding when he testified that he was not and had not been a member of the Communist Party. Count II is laid under § 346 (a) (1) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1163,
“Knowingly to make a false statement under oath, either orally or in writing, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization or citizenship.”
“To encourage, aid, advise, or assist any person not entitled thereto to obtain, accept, or receive any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, or certificate of citizenship, or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship—
“a. Knowing the same to have been procured by fraud; . . . .”
Petitioners each moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground, inter alia, that each count was barred by the statute of limitations. The motions were denied. 86 F. Supp. 922. The trial resulted in a jury verdict of guilty on each count. Bridges received concurrent sentences of imprisonment for two years on Count I and five years on Count II. The other petitioners each received concurrent sentences of imprisonment for two years on each of Counts I and III. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 199 F. 2d 811. Rehearing en banc was denied. 201 F. 2d 254. Because of an indicated conflict between that decision and part of the decision in Marzani v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 168 F. 2d 133, affirmed
The acts charged occurred in 1945. Accordingly, unless the general three-year statute of limitations is suspended or superseded, the indictment, found in 1949, was out of time and must be dismissed.11
I. The running of the general three-year statute of limitations was not suspended by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act in relation to the offenses charged in any of the counts.
A. The suspension prescribed by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies to offenses involving the defrauding of the United States or any agency thereof, whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner, but only where the fraud is of a pecuniary nature or at least of a nature concerning property.
The Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act creates an exception to a long-standing congressional “policy of re-
“Moreover, the concluding clause of the section, though denominated a proviso, is an excepting clause and therefore to be narrowly construed. United States v. McElvain, 272 U. S. 633, 639.[14] And as the section has to do with statutory crimes it is to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose, and ought not to be extended by construction to embrace so-called frauds not so denominated by the statutes creating offenses.” United States v. Scharton, 285 U. S. 518, 521-522.
The legislative history of this exception emphasizes the propriety of its conservative interpretation. It indicates a purpose to suspend the general statute of limitations only as to war frauds of a pecuniary nature or of a nature concerning property. It nowhere suggests a purpose to swallow up the three-year limitation to the extent necessary to reach the offenses before us.
“Thus, the [Supreme] Court held that defrauding the United States in a pecuniary or financial sense is not a constituent ingredient of offenses under the False Claims Act.
“It necessarily follows, in our view, that the Suspension Act does not apply to offenses under the False Claims Act. The Supreme Court has clearly said (1) that a statute identical in pertinent part with the Suspension Act does not apply to offenses of which defrauding the United States in a pecuniary way is not an essential ingredient; and (2) that such defrauding of the United States is not an essential ingredient of offenses under the False Claims statute.” 83 U. S. App. D. C., at 81, 168 F. 2d, at 136.
Brought here on several issues, including dismissal of the nine counts, that case was twice affirmed, without opinion, by an evenly divided Court. 335 U. S. 895, 336
for every offense punishable under the laws of the United States. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 4916, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 6, 8, and see 88 Cong. Rec. 4759-4760.
As the offenses here charged are those of knowingly making a false statement under oath in a proceeding relating to naturalization (Count II), or of conspiring to have someone do so (Count I), or of aiding someone to obtain a Certificate of Naturalization knowing it to be procured by fraud (Count III), none of them involve the defrauding of the United States in any pecuniary manner or in a manner concerning property. We accordingly hold that, for that reason, the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act does not apply to those offenses.
B. A further ground for our conclusion is that this Court already has interpreted the language before us, or similar language in comparable Acts, to mean that the wartime suspension of limitations authorized by Congress is limited strictly to offenses in which defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. Decisions of this Court, made prior to 1942, had so interpreted the earlier legislation that its substantial reenactment, in 1942, carried with it the interpretation above stated. United States v. Scharton, 285 U. S. 518; United States v. McElvain, 272 U. S. 633; United States v. Noveck, 271 U. S. 201. See also, Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49, 54-55, and United States v. Cohn, 270 U. S. 339.
Likewise, in Count III, the aiding of someone to commit that offense, in violation of § 346 (a) (5), does not require proof of fraud as an essential ingredient. If, as here, the main offense is complete with the proof of perjury, the suspension does not apply to the charge of aiding in the commission of that offense. The insertion in the indictment of the words “procured by fraud” does not change the offense charged. The embellishment of the indictment does not lengthen the time for prosecution. It is
So it is with Count I. A charge of conspiracy to commit a certain substantive offense is not entitled to a longer statute of limitations than the charge of committing the offense itself. There is no additional time prescribed for indictments for conspiracies as such. The insertion of surplus words in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense charged.
“The language of the proviso cannot reasonably be read to include all conspiracies as defined by § 37. [The general conspiracy section of the old Criminal Code, now
18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 371 .] But if the proviso could be construed to include any conspiracies, obviously it would be limited to those to commit the substantive offenses which it covers.” United States v. McElvain, 272 U. S. 633, 639.
The Government contends that the General Conspiracy Act20 under which Count I is laid comprises two classes of conspiracies: (1) “to commit any offense against the United States” and (2) “to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose.” It urges that the indictment here charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States under the second clause. It suggests that, under that clause, proof of a specific intent to defraud is an essential ingredient of the offense and thus brings Count I within the Suspension Act. The fallacy in that argument is that, while the indictment may be framed in the language of the second clause, both it and the proof to support it rely solely on the fact of a conspiracy to commit the substantive offenses violating § 346 (a) (1) or
The Court of Appeals in Marzani v. United States, supra, was convinced that the Suspension Act did not apply to such offenses, as those here involved, under the False Claims Act, no matter what words descriptive of fraud were added to the indictment, so long as fraud was not an essential ingredient of the offense defined in the statute. Another Court of Appeals arrived at a like conclusion in United States v. Obermeier, 186 F. 2d 243, 256-257, with respect to offenses under the statute involved in Count II of the instant indictment.
II. The saving clause in § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, does not “save” the special five-year statute of limitations of the Nationality Act of 1940 so as to apply it to the violations of that Act charged in Counts II and III.
The Government contends, alternatively, that the indictment, which was found May 25, 1949, was timely as to Counts II and III, even if the Suspension Act is not applicable to this indictment. Its alternative contention is that those counts respectively charge violations of § 346 (a) (1) and (5) of the Nationality Act of 1940 which occurred in 1945 and that the indictment for them was found within the special five-year limitation of § 346 (g)
“SEC. 21. The sections or parts thereof of the Revised Statutes or Statutes at Large enumerated in the following schedule are hereby repealed.[22] Any rights or liabilities now existing under such sections or parts thereof shall not be affected by this repeal.” 62 Stat. 862.
By such repeal of § 346 (g), the general three-year statute of limitations became applicable.
The purpose of Congress to substitute the general three-year limitation in place of the special five-year limitation is indicated in the Reviser‘s Note to
“In the consolidation of these sections the 5-year period of limitation for violations of the Nationality Code, provided for in said section 746 (g) of title 8, U. S. C., 1940 ed., Aliens and Nationality, is reduced to 3 years. There seemed no sound basis for considering 3 years adequate in the case of heinous felonies and gross frauds against the United States but inadequate for misuse of a passport or false statement to a naturalization examiner.”
To adopt the interpretation proposed by the Government would produce the situation that offenses committed in August, 1948, would be indictable until August, 1953, whereas like offenses committed in the following October, 1948, would not be indictable after October, 1951. The longer period for the prosecution of the earlier offenses has no relation to war conditions. Such a result is not to be inferred without a clear direction to that effect.
Finally, to interpret the words “rights or liabilities” in the saving clause as including such procedural incidents as the period within which indictments may be found
As the general three-year statute of limitations is applicable to each of the offenses charged and has been neither suspended by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, nor made inapplicable by § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, the indictment in this proceeding came too late to be effective. The motion to dismiss it should
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON and MR. JUSTICE CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE REED, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE MINTON join, dissenting.
The limitation for prosecutions under the second clause of
An indictment under § 371 may be found for conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States. These are alternative, disjunctive provisions. One addresses itself to the conspiracy to commit substantive offenses specified under other statutes; the other to a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Such a conspiracy is itself the substantive offense charged in the indictment. This construction has been accepted by the courts without variation.2
The indictment, Count I, charges conspiracy “to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the proper administration of its naturalization laws” by causing Bridges falsely and fraudulently to state that he “had never belonged to the Communist Party in the United States.” We think that this alleged offense, since it is an effort to defraud the United States by impairing or obstructing or defeating its naturalization laws, obviously falls within the terms of the suspension of limitations, § 3287, “involving fraud” “by conspiracy.”
We see nothing in the legislative history of § 3287 to raise a question as to its applicability to this indictment. The opinion of the Court quotes excerpts from reports concerning the need of suspension of limitation following the First World War. A statute was then passed, which
The Court asserts that the Wartime Suspension Act should be limited to those frauds of a pecuniary or property nature because the Act is an exception to a “long-standing congressional ‘policy of repose.‘” Of course,
Nor can we accept the Court‘s reliance on Marzani v. United States, 83 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 82, 168 F. 2d 133, 137, as a sound precedent for construing the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act to apply only to frauds of a pecuniary or property nature. On review this Court was evenly divided. The Court of Appeals held that the Wartime Suspension Act did not apply because “[t]he Supreme Court has clearly said (1) that a statute identical in pertinent part with the Suspension Act does not apply to offenses of which defrauding the United States in a pecuniary way is not an essential ingredient; and (2) that such defrauding of the United States is not an essential ingredient of offenses under the False Claims statute.” 83 U. S. App. D. C., at 81, 168 F. 2d, at 136. Marzani was indicted under the False Claims Act.8
The cases relied upon for the first point are United States v. Noveck, 271 U. S. 201; United States v. McElvain, 272 U. S. 633; and United States v. Scharton, 285 U. S. 518. Noveck‘s case held that an indictment for perjury in an income tax return was barred, despite a suspension statute much like § 3287, because fraud was not an element of the crime of perjury. McElvain‘s case held similarly as to the substantive offense of a willful attempt to evade a tax. Scharton‘s case followed Noveck‘s and held that fraud on the United States was not an ingredient of evading a tax by false statements.
The cases both under the first and second points of the Marzani decision deal with the suspension statutes as applied to substantive crimes that did not require proof of fraud against the United States for conviction. It was enough that the charge and proof showed perjury, false swearing or misrepresentation to a government agency. Fraud was not an essential ingredient. The contrary is true in the present prosecution under Count I.
As we showed in the second paragraph of this opinion, the substantive crime here charged is the conspiracy to defraud the United States, punishable as a conspiracy. The fraud is an essential element. There can be no doubt that this crime, denounced by § 371, covers nonpecuniary
As Count I describes the substantive offense of conspiracy to defraud the United States, we do not agree with the Court‘s statement that:
“The use in Count I of language copied from the second clause of the conspiracy statute merely cloaks a factual charge of conspiring to cause, or knowingly to aid, Bridges to make a false statement under oath in his naturalization proceeding, or to obtain by false statements a Certificate of Naturalization to which he was not entitled.”
To prove the substantive offense of conspiracy under § 371 it is necessary to prove the fraud. It cannot be said that a false statement as to Communist membership in a naturalization hearing would not be a fraud against the administration of the naturalization laws within the language of Haas v. Henkel, supra, of “impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.” P. 479.
We therefore would affirm the judgment below as to Count I. Petitioners have also contended here that the conviction is barred because the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel require us to hold that Bridges’ nonmembership during the crucial period has been judi-
As our views have not prevailed as to Count I, we forbear to express any views as to Counts II and III.
Notes
“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Id.,
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within three years next after such offense shall have been committed.”
Id.,
“When the United States is at war the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not, . . . shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.”
“(1) Whether, in view of prior adjudications (including the determination of this Court in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135), this proceeding is barred, in whole or in part, by the principles of res judicata, or estoppel, or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
“(2) Whether this proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations.”
This was amended in 1944 by the insertion of more specific references to war contracts and to the handling of property under the Surplus Property Act of 1944. 58 Stat. 667 and 781. Since September 1, 1948,
“When the United States is at war the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not, or (2) committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody, control or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States, or (3) committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency, shall be suspended until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress. . . .”
The President proclaimed the termination of hostilities of World War II, December 31, 1946. 3 CFR, 1946 Supp., 77-78.
This proviso was eliminated by 45 Stat. 51, December 27, 1927.
“The Department of Justice has been engaged in the investigation and is now engaged in the investigation of various alleged offenses, consisting largely of frauds against the Government which are claimed to have occurred during the war with Germany and since its conclusion. Many of these alleged offenses grew out of the [contractual] relation of the Government with various persons and corporations engaged in the furnishing of military and naval supplies of various kinds. Many of these transactions require the most minute investigation in order to ascertain the exact facts, and in every case a considerable period must elapse before such facts may be gathered from the files and other sources that the department may know whether prosecutions are justified or not. In many cases months, and perhaps considerable longer periods, will be required for such investigations.” See also, 61 Cong. Rec. 7060-7061, 7640.
In 1927, H. R. Rep. No. 16, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, supporting the bill to eliminate the 1921 proviso, said:
“In 1921 the Attorney General represented that he was desirous of having further time to investigate alleged war frauds, and that owing to the nature of the investigations the statute of limitations might run before it would be possible to obtain indictments, and he therefore requested that the period of the statute of limitations applicable to conspiracy to defraud the Government of the United States should be extended from three years to six years. The Congress complied with the request and the limitation was extended from three years to six years as to that particular class of offenses.
“The reasons for the above change have ceased to exist; that is, the Department of Justice announced some time ago that it did not propose to attempt any further prosecution of offenses of that character, that is to say, offenses giving rise to the statute.” See also, 69 Cong. Rec. 473, 842.
“The purpose of the proposed legislation is to suspend any existing statutes of limitations applicable to offenses involving the defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States or any agency thereof, for the period of the present war. Contracting for the United States is done through its various agencies, including the departments and independent establishments and Government-owned and Government-controlled corporations, and frauds against all of these agencies are intended to be embraced by the bill.
“During the World War many frauds committed against the Government were not discovered until the 3-year statute of limitations had almost expired, and as stated in the committee report hereinafter referred to, many of the alleged offenses were barred from prosecution. The general criminal statute of limitations (Rev. Stats., sec. 1044) was amended on November 17, 1921, extending the period to 6 years in respect to offenses involving frauds against the United States . . . .
“During normal times the present 3-year statute of limitations may afford the Department of Justice sufficient time to investigate, discover, and gather evidence to prosecute frauds against the Government. The United States, however, is engaged in a gigantic war program. Huge sums of money are being expended for materials and equipment in order to carry on the war successfully. Although steps have been taken to prevent and to prosecute frauds against the Government, it is recognized that in the varied dealings opportunities will no doubt be presented for unscrupulous persons to defraud the Government or some agency. These frauds may be difficult to discover as is often true of this type of offense and many of them may not come to light for some time to come. The law-enforcement branch of the Government is also busily engaged in its many duties, including the enforcement of the espionage, sabotage, and other laws.”
A similar statement was made in H. R. Rep. No. 2051, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2, supporting the same bill, H. R. 6484. See also, 88 Cong. Rec. 6160. This bill, readopting the 1921 policy, was introduced at the suggestion of the Attorney General in lieu of a proposal then pending to suspend the running of the statute of limitations
“SEC. 13. The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability.”
See