« PreviousContinue »
Opinion of the Court.
property appertaining to it;" and, by $ 251, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make and issue instructions and regulations to collectors, receivers, depositaries, officers and others, and to prescribe rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, to be used in executing and enforcing the internal revenue laws and laws relating to raising revenue from imports, or duties on imports, or to warehousing.
Section 20 of the act in question would be fully carried out by making regulations of the character of those provided for in § 161 and $ 251 of the Revised Statutes, without extending the provision of § 18 so as to make a criminal offence, as a neglect to do a thing “required by law,” of a neglect to do a thing required only by a regulation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
It is well settled that there are no common law offences against the United States. United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415; United States v. Britton, 108 U. S. 199, 206; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 262, 263, and cases there cited.
It was said by this court in Morrill v. Jones, 106 U. S. 466, 467, that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot by his regulations alter or amend a revenue law, and that all he can do is to regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what Congress has enacted. Accordingly, it was held in that case, under $ 2505 of the Revised Statutes, which provided that live animals specially imported for breeding purposes from beyond the seas should be admitted free of duty, upon proof thereof satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury and under such regulations as he might prescribe, that he had no authority to prescribe a regulation requiring that, before admitting the animals free, the collector should be satisfied that they were of superior stock, adapted to improving the breed in the United States.
Much more does this principle apply to a case where it is sought substantially to prescribe a criminal offence by the regulation of a department. It is a principle of criminal law that an offence which may be the subject of criminal procedure is an act committed or omitted “in violation of a
Opinion of the Court.
public law, either forbidding or commanding it.” 4 American & English Encyclopedia of Law, 642; 4 Bl. Com. 5.
It would be a very dangerous principle to hold that a thing prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as a needful regulation under the oleomargarine act, for carrying it into effect, could be considered as a thing “required by law” in the carrying on or conducting of the business of a wholesale dealer in oleomargarine, in such manner as to become a criminal offence punishable under $ 18 of the act; particularly when the same act, in § 5, requires a manufacturer of the article to keep such books and render such returns as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may, by regulation, require, and does not impose, in that section or elsewhere in the act, the duty of keeping such books and rendering such returns upon a wholesale dealer in the article.
It is necessary that a sufficient statutory authority should exist for declaring any act or omission a criminal offence; and we do not think that the statutory authority in the present case is sufficient. If Congress intended to make it an offence for wholesale dealers in oleomargarine to omit to keep books and render returns as required by regulations to be made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, it would have done so distinctly, in connection with an enactment such as that above recited, made in $ 41 of the act of October 1, 1890.
Regulations prescribed by the President and by the heads of departments, under authority granted by Congress, may be regulations prescribed by law, so as lawfully to support acts done under them and in accordance with them, and may thus have, in a proper sense, the force of law; but it does not follow that a thing required by them is a thing so required by law as to make the neglect to do the thing a criminal offence in a citizen, where a statute does not distinctly make the neglect in question a criminal offence.
The questions certified are answered in the negative.
AMENDMENT TO RULES.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OCTOBER TERM, 1891.
ORDERED, That all parts of Rule 67 of the Rules of Practice for the Courts of Equity of the United States, as now existing, be, and the same are hereby, superseded, and the following rule is promulgated as such Rule 67 :
After the cause is at issue, commissions to take testimony may be taken out in vacation as well as in term, jointly by both parties, or severally by either party, upon interrogatories filed by the party taking out the same in the clerk's office, ten days' notice thereof being given to the adverse party to file cross-interrogatories before the issuing of the commission; and if no cross-interrogatories are filed at the expiration of the time, the commission may issue ex parte. In all cases the commissioner or commissioners may be named by the court or by a judge thereof; and the presiding judge of the court exercising jurisdiction may, either in term time or in vacation, vest in the clerk of the court general power to name commissioners to take testimony.
Either party may give notice to the other that he desires the evidence to be adduced in the cause to be taken orally, and thereupon all the witnesses to be examined shall be examined before one of the examiners of the court, or before an examiner to be specially appointed by the court. The examiner, if he so request, shall be furnished with a copy of the pleadings.
Such examination shall take place in the presence of the parties or their agents, by their counsel or solicitors, and the witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination and re-examination, ail of which shall be conducted as near as may be in the mode now used in common-law courts.
The depositions taken upon such oral examination shall be reduced to writing by the examiner, in the form of question put and answer given; provided that, by consent of parties, the examiner may take down the testimony of any witness in the form of narrative.
At the request of either party, with reasonable notice, the deposition of any witness shall, under the direction of the examiner, be taken down either by a skilful stenographer or by a skilful typewriter, as the examiner may elect, and when taken stenographically shall be put into typewriting or other writing: provided, That such stenographer or typewriter has been appointed by the court, or is approved by both parties.
The testimony of each witness, after such reduction to writing, shall be read over to him and signed by him in the presence of the examiner and of such of the parties or counsel as may attend; provided, that if the witness shall refuse to sign his deposition so taken, then the examiner shall sign the same, stating upon the record the reasons, if any, assigned by the witness for such refusal.
The examiner may, upon all examinations, state any special matters to the court as he shall think fit; and any question or questions which may be objected to shall be noted by the examiner upon the deposition, but he shall not have power to decide on the competency, materiality, or relevancy of the questions; and the court shall have power to deal with the costs of incompetent, immaterial, or irrelevant depositions, or parts of them, as may be just.
In case of refusal of witnesses to attend, to be sworn or to answer any question put by the examiner, or by counsel or solicitor, the same practice shall be adopted as is now practised with respect to witnesses to be produced on examination before an examiner of said court on written interrogatories.
Notice shall be given by the respective counsel or solicitors to the opposite counsel or solicitors, or parties, of the time and place of the examination, for such reasonable time as the examiner may fix by order in each cause.
When the examination of witnesses before the examiner is con
cluded, the original depositions, authenticated by the signature of the examiner, shall be transmitted by him to the clerk of the court, to be there filed of record, in the same mode as prescribed in section 865 of the Revised Statutes.
Testimony may be taken on commission in the usual way, by written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, on motion to the court in term time, or to a judge in vacation, for special reasons, satisfactory to the court or judge.
Where the evidence to be adduced in a cause is to be taken orally, as before provided, the court may, on motion of either party, assign a time within which the complainant shall take his evidence in support of the bill, and a time thereafter within which the defendant shall take his evidence in defence, and a time thereafter within which the complainant shall take his evidence in reply; and no further evidence shall be taken in the cause, unless by agreement of the parties, or by leave of court first obtained, on motion for cause shown.
The expense of the taking down of depositions by a stenographer and of putting them into typewriting or other writing shall be paid in the first instance by the party calling the witness, and shall be imposed by the court, as part of the costs, upon such party as the court shall adjudge should ultimately bear them.
Promulgated May 2, 1892.