§ 209. Resisting Revenue Officers; Rescuing or Destroying Seized Property, Etc.-The provisions of old Section 5447 become in substance Section 65 of the new Code, in the following words:

"Sec. 65. Whoever shall forcibly assault, resist, oppose, prevent, impede, or interfere with any officer of the customs or of the internal revenue, or his deputy, or any person assisting him in the execution of his duties, or any person authorized to make searches and seizures, in the execution of his duty, or shall rescue, attempt to rescue, or cause to be rescued, any property which has been seized by any person so authorized; or whoever before, at, or after such seizure, in order to prevent the seizure or securing of any goods, wares, or merchandise by any person so authorized, shall stave, break, throw overboard, destroy, or remove the same, shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and whoever shall use any deadly or dangerous weapon in resisting any person authorized to make searches or seizures, in the execution of his duty, with intent to commit a bodily injury upon him, or to deter or prevent him from dicharging his duty, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.

§ 210. Falsely Assuming to be Revenue Officer.There is little difference between Section 5448 of the old Statutes and new Section 66, which is as follows:

"Sec. 66. Whoever shall falsely represent himself to be a revenue officer, and, in such assumed character, demand or receive any money or other article of value from any person for any duty or tax due to the United States, or for any violation or pretended violation of any revenue law of the United States, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned not more than two years.'

This statute is in addition to Section 32 of the new Code, which has been heretofore noticed, and which was old Section 5448. Section 32 makes it an offense for any person to pretend to be any United States officer, while Section 66 makes it an offense to assume to be a revenue officer, when in such assumed character a demand is made for, or any money or other article of value is received from any person for any duty or tax due the United States, or for any violation or pretended violation of any of the revenue laws of the United States. In other words, a bare assumption or pretention that one is a United States revenue officer, without demanding or receiving any money or article of value, as set out in

the statute, would not be an offense under this section, nor would it be an offense under Section 32.

Indictment.-An indictment should charge the unlawful, felonious, and false representation of the defendant to be a revenue officer of the United States, and that in such assumed character he did demand and receive certain money or valuable thing, as the case may be, as a duty or tax, or in settlement of some violation or pretended violation of the Government revenue laws.

In United States vs. Browne, 119 Federal, 482, District Judge Thomas held good, on demurrer, an indictment which jointly indicted two defendants under old Section 5448, the first count of which charged that the defendants unlawfully and feloniously falsely represented themselves to be revenue officers of the United States, and in such assumed character did demand and receive certain money, to wit, two hundred dollars, of and from one A. Isaacs, for a pretended violation by the said Isaacs of a revenue law of the United States; that is to say, of Section 8 of an Act of Congress concerning internal revenue taxation, approved June 13, 1898, as amended in the respect of knowingly and wilfully buying washed revenue stamps, etc. The second count was like the first, except that it charged that the defendants had in possession washed and restored revenue stamps, knowingly, and without lawful excuse. The third count charged that the defendants, with intent to defraud one Isaacs, unlawfully and feloniously, did falsely assume and pretend to be officers and employees acting under the authority of the United States, to wit, revenue officers and employees, and in such pretended character did fraudulently demand and obtain from him, the said Isaacs, a sum of money, to wit, two hundred dollars. This third count, it will be noticed, is laid under what is now new Section 32. The defendants' counsel contended that the averments of the indictment were not sufficiently defined, particularly as to the designation of the sort of revenue officer meant. The Court held that the words of the indictment were technically sufficient to charge an offense under the statute.

The case of the United States vs. Farnham, 127 Federal, 478, was discussed in considering Section 32 supra, but it is not out of place to cite it here again to support the theory that

there must not be a remoteness between the pretended character, and the demand or receipt of the money or thing of value. In the Farnham case, the defendant pretended to be a secret-service operative, wearing a badge, etc. Ten months afterwards he returned to the same hotel, representing himself to be a traveling salesman, and secured the cashing of a worthless check. At the time of the cashing of the worthless check, he did not make any further representation of his Government employment, and the Court held that the facts were insufficient to sustain a conviction for pretending to be an employee of the United States, and as such knowingly and feloniously obtaining from another a sum of money, etc.

& 211. Offering Presents to Revenue Officers.— Section 67 of the new Code, which re-enacts the substantial provisions of old Statute 5452, is as follows:

"Sec. 67. Whoever, being engaged in the importation into the United States of any goods, wares, or merchandise, or being interested as principal, clerk, or agent in the entry of any goods, wares, or merchandise, shall at any time make, or offer to make, to any officer of the revenue, any gratuity or present of money or other thing of value, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The offense herein denounced is a species of bribery, and without using the ugly word "bribery," is for the purpose of covering such gratuities and gifts as might otherwise be received by the public official, even though such official would not think of accepting a bribe. The statute is limited in that it only applies to such gratuities or presents as are made by importers to any officer in the Federal revenue service. Smuggling of merchandise from foreign countries into the United States would doubtless be facilitated to a more or less extent by gifts or gratuities from such smugglers to revenue inspectors and officers. The purpose, therefore, of the statute, seems to be to prevent such friendships between importers and revenue officials as would facilitate importations of goods into this country without the payment of legal duties.

§ 212. Admitting Merchandise to Entry for Less Than Legal Duty.-Old Section 5444 becomes new Section 68, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 68. Whoever, being an officer of the revenue, shall, by any means whatever, knowingly admit or aid in admitting to entry, any goods, wares, or merchandise, upon payment of less than the amount of duty legally due thereon, shall be removed from office and fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

District Judge Chatfield, in the case of United States vs. Mescall, 164 Federal, 584, which was an indictment under old Section 5444, held that that section did not refer merely to the act of filing at the customs-house the document known as an entry, but comprises the transaction of entering the goods into the body of the commerce of the country; that is, the whole process of passing the goods from the customs-house, which cannot be deemed completed until liquidation has been had. He further held that the words in the statute, "aid in the illegal admission of imports," includes aid given both before and after the fact, and where a custom officer aids one who has made wrongful entry, by concealing the falsity of the entry, or by supporting it by false official returns, he is within the prohibition of the section.

Indictment.-In the above case, the Court held that an indictment which charged that certain goods had been imported into the United States, and entered by the importer with the collector of the port under an entry number, that such goods were subject to a specific duty, and that the defendant, who was an officer of the customs service, as a part of his official duties, was to weigh the goods included in this particular importation, and to return to the collector a true statement of the result of that weighing from which statement the amount of duty to be collected was to be liquidated and paid, and that in fact the defendant returned a false statement of weight, upon which false weight duty was paid, (the amount of this payment being too little, in proportion to the amount by which the false weight was less than the actual weight), and that the defendant, by so doing, unlawfully admitted, or aided in admitting, to entry, goods specified upon payment of less than the amount of duty legally due thereon, was not subject to demurrer for failing to describe an offense under this statute. See also United States vs. Browne, 126 Federal, 766, and United States vs. Legg, 105 Federal, 933. See United States vs. Mescall, by the same judge, for other points, 164 Federal, 587.

§ 213. Securing Entry of Merchandise by False Samples, Etc.-Section 69 in the new Code is the same as Section 5445 of the old Statutes, and is as follows:

"Sec. 69. Whoever, by any means whatever, shall knowingly effect, or aid in effecting, any entry of goods, wares, or merchandise, at less than the true weight or measure thereof, or upon a false classification thereof as to quality or value, or by the payment of less than the amount of duty legally due thereon, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The allegations and proof under this section should show knowledge on the part of the defendant of the improper weight or measure or classification of the goods or articles imported; and while in United States vs. Rosenthal, 126 Federal, 766, District Judge Thomas held that an indictment under 5445 which charged that the defendant, on a day named, "with intent .... that the United States should be wrongfully deprived of a portion of the lawful duties due" on certain imported goods which were specifically dutiable according to weight, effected an entry thereof at less than their true weight, and by payment of less than their legal duty, sufficiently charged that the entry was knowingly effected; yet, it is believed that the correct practice is to use the word knowingly in the indictment when the statute makes knowledge a constituent of the offense.

With the above qualification, the indictment as epitomized by Judge Thomas in that case, may be relied upon as good under this statute, such epitome comprehending that the defendants, on the day named, and with intent to defraud the United States of duty on goods specifically dutiable according to weight, effected an entry thereof, which was an entry for warehousing the goods, and by payment of less than the legal duty. They effected said entry, (1) by making it in accordance with false statements as to weight in the invoice, which invoice had by their direction been made, consulated, and forwarded by their agent in Japan; (2) by corruptly procuring said invoice to be wrongfully approved, passed, and reported, by Browne, the examiner, to the collector. In other words, the offense described in the statute is knowingly effecting an entry of goods, (a) at less than their true weight or measure; (b) upon a false classification; or (c) by payment of less than legal duty