*1 STATES v. SMITH. UNITED 2 NO. January 4, 1951. Decided
Argued December cause for argued Erdahl Robert General him on the briefs Solicitor States. With Mclnerney. Attorney Perlman and Assistant General in both Benney on a brief Also with them were John R. in John R. on a brief No. cases and Wilkins by the Margolius, appointment acting Bernard under Court, argued appellee and filed a brief for cause No. 162. for in No. 20. appearance appellee
JnTo Douglas opinion Mr. delivered the Court.
Appellee (No. 20) Smith was indicted Oсtober for name of having July 1, 1947, forged on or about on a on the Treasurer of the payee check drawn United States. 162) September was indicted Dailey (No.
Appellee 14, 1947, knowingly March having on or about applica with his made a false statement *2 Administration services. tion for Farmers Home charged In was committed more each case the crime years than before the indictment was returned three by three-year would be barred therefore that statute has (18 3282), S. C. unless § limitations U. it prosecution argued tolled. The that was tolled been . Suspension 1942, of Limitations Act of by Wartime ed.) The District amended, (1946 § as 18 U. S. C. 590a. disagreed in with Court each case appeal. dismissed the indictment. The cases are here on 18 U. S. C. § of August 24,1942,
The Act derives from the Act which suspended ap of the statute of limitations running plicable involving against to.offenses the United or 30, 1945, States until June until such' earlier timе as . Congress by resolution, President, concurrent or the may designate. by 56 747. That Stat. Act amended 1944, 649, 667, the Contract Settlement Act of 58 Stat. provide among things suspen other the term of sion of the statute of limitations was “until years three after the termination present of hostilities war as proclaimed by or aby President concurrent resolution the. of the two Congress.” Offenses Houses with the negotiation, award, termination, or settlement of contraсts were included that Act. And offenses in by care, connection with the handling, disposal prop erty by Surplus were added Property Act of 1944. 765, 58 Stat. alleged At the time offenses the 1 Act read in part: relevant any “The existing statute of limitations n any to' offense the laws of the 1 683, The Act of June 62 Stat. which revised the Crim- (id., 862, Code, 868) repealed Suspension and, inal Act with a (1) involving defrauding attempts or States any or agency thereof to defraud the United any mаn- conspiracy not, in. by whether . . . ner, shall in the war as
the termination of hostilities a proclaimed by by the President concurrent reso- Congress.” lution of the two Houses of II declared termi- hostilities World War 1946, nated Decembеr Presidential Proclamation (Pt. 2) Reg. 12 Fed. 1048-1049; Stat. that if designated therefore clear offenses were com- three-year mitted within the to the date of period prior the Act or between the date of the Act and December suspended. the statute limitations would be *3 question is applicable whether the Act is likewise to of- fenses committed after the date of - proclamation the of of termination hostilities. argument of the is thаt language the of the Act makes no distinction between offenses com- mitted before dnd offenses committed after the termina- hostilities, tion of emphasis the being the Act on the of suspension of “running” the of the statutes of limita- tions. It is that contended the extension -of the toAct prescribed by offenses the Contract Settlement Act and the Surplus. Property of Act—offenses the type likely to changes wording, few Id., 828, reenacted it. C. 18 U. S. § Sectiоn “rights the preserved- 1948 Act or all liabilities” under repealed assume, the deciding, sections. We without that reser vation has no on effect the of a statute of limitations. See Obermeier, United v. States 186 F. 2d 251. The Reviser added beginning at reading the the section a new the clause “when United temporary is at war” “permanent to make the instead of section legislation, reenacting legislation and necessity to obviate the such II) in the follоwing (Supp. future.” See Reviser’s note 18 U. S. C. 7 . §328 period per- post-hostilities the during
be committed —is operative made the Act that indication suasive of hostilities. the termination before, as well as after, the We conclude contrary view. takeWe inapplicable is to crimes committed Suspension Act The words of the of hostilities. date of termination limitations ¡the “running” of the statute of Act are that until three after the termination “shall occurring is that offenses hostilities.” The connotation prior to the termination of hostilities shall not be allowed legally forgotten to be in the rush of the war activities. gist Reports.2 That is the of the The fear was that the 2 Rep. Sеss., pp. 1-2: legislation any purpose proposed suspend existing “The is to involving defrauding offenses statutes limitations any agency thereof, attempts to defraud the United States war; Contracting period present for the United States through agencies, including departments is done its various independent establishments and Government-owned Government- agencies corporations, against are controlled and frauds all of these to bе embraced the bill. intended 3-year “During statute of limitations normal times may% investigate, Department of sufficient time to dis- afford against prosecute cover, gather evidence to Govern- however, engaged gigantiс States, in a war ment. money being expended for materials program. Huge are sums successfully. Although carry war equipment in order to on the prevent prosecute frauds and'to steps have been taken *4 dealings opportunities recognized varied Government,- is that in the it persons defraud the unscrupulous to presented for no doubt be will may to dis- be difficult agency. These frauds or some Government may many of them of offense type true of this cover is often as. The law-enforcement light to come. for some time not come to- duties, many busily engaged in its is also of- branch the Government sabotage, laws. and other espionage, (cid:127)including of thе the enforcement ' be taken should opinion that action is of the “Your committee may be so that statute the limitations to extend át this time be with preoccupied would so officers law-enforcement the crimes fraud war effort that of the prosecution forgotten would be against the United perpetrated legisla- the premise The implicit it late. until was too activities, at the time existing is that thé frenzied tion would continue until hostilities lаw, the Act became the interest public and that until then should terminated US' disadvantaged. would have not be of the termination hostili- change the function date of of sus- provide periods ties. It would be used to various three-year period for crimes committed within the pension That commencing with termination of hostilities. the statutory scheme, us to an seems to be alteration the one that its under our destroys symmetry. Since con- three-year Suspen- the period prescribed by struction the run hos- sion Act to at the date of termination of starts tilities, all to is are treated crimes which the Act time uniformly. when law-enforcement officers The. busy pres- with war activities is not the counted; when off, began run' No again. sure was time reasons punished of the discovered and even after the termination conflict, operate, and to insure the limitations statute will not present-day events, prоtection of those who stress of the for the under attempt States.” would defraud to defraud history supports Amendment the same view. Sess., p. states: provided “As in the Contract Settlement Act respect with offense the laws statute of limitations .of act arising in with under activities United States suspended until 3 after termination hostilities magnitude provision has been necessitated present war. This preoccupa- act, operations under this intensive involved participants witnesses-with war effort. tion both will- cognizable under this of the offenses clear that the bulk investigated will the end of the apprehended not war stage of they advance to require time before then considerable n litigation.*’ *5 230 for policy suggested straining language are running beyond
Act to of the statute suspend suspension seem advisable. emergency which made
Affirmed. Clark, concurring. Mr. Justice I join opinion of the Court. Soon judgment and after the realized beginning II, of World War Department it would be for impossible currently to investigate prosecute large arising number offenses out of the war effort. There- Congress suspended fore of thе statute lim- as itations to frauds first until Government, 30, 1945, June .subsequently after termination hostilities. It is that Congress clear give intended to the Department more apprehend, time.to investigate, prosecute occurring offenses “under the stress of present-day events” of the war “even after the termination of the conflict.” H. R. Rep. No. Cong., 77th 2d 2; Sess. Gottfried, United States v.
Sess. see 2; 165 2dF. (1948). Day V-E May was Day V-J September 2, 1945. Immediately V-J all war Day procurement stopped, contracts were canceled, and re- negotiation speeded up. not pro- President did claim the cessation of hostilities until months after the fighting During ceased. sixteen period, the pressing problems оf demobilization and re- problems likely to cause the per- continued conversion — petration of frauds on the Government —were for the most part an brought to end.
The present case's had nothing to do with the war or the. reconversion thereafter, Smith being charged with forgery a for $90 check dated June 30, Government 1947, and Dailey being indicted having amade false on statement March 14, 1947, to the Department of Agri farm, cows, poultry, еto., con
culture as to value his an for the services of application nection with the.Farmers Both of the offenses occurred Home Administration. *6 war was over and after “the inten long fighting after of both and witnessеs preoccupation participants sive if ceased, persons with the war effort”* had ever those (cid:127) employed. were so stat- clearly suspension These cases illustrate that of- ute was not to and not embrace should intended fenses committed subsequent December applies August 25, only to offenses committed between 1939, and those offenses which For occurred between the date of the 1942 Act and the cessa- hostilities, tion of was to Congress’ intention give latter date to Department years Justice six from the investigate prosecute. For those offenses which oc- Congress’ curred before the date of intention Act, givе Department years was to three after the cessation plus portion regular hostilities whatever three- year. period yet limitations’ had not run when the passed. Act was with whom Mr. Justice Minton, Reed,
Mr. Justice and Mr. Justice Mr. join, Jackson Burton dissenting.
As I read the intended the statute of statute, limitations to be
termination of which would be'December hostilities, lim- that there to be no statute of time, Until lifted, itations. that date the suspension On again. to run construction began Court’s suspension was lifted at the termination of hos- I gives tilities would three-year period. no effect judgments reverse the these cases.
*S. Sess. 14.