Edward Douglass White

Name: United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court
Author: Edward Douglass White

United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Edward Douglass White. It explores elements such as the United States, entry and statute.

Quotes from United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ With this genesis in mind it is urged that the sole purpose of the prohibition forbidding more than one entry by the same person, inserted in the coal-land laws when that subject came to be separately dealt with, was to secure to every citizen the right, if he chose, to make one entry; in other words, to prevent the monopolization by one person by means of many entries of the whole or a vast part of the coal fields belonging to the United States. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ That abstractly there may be a difference between the two terms is no denied in argument by the United States, and finds support in works of respectable authority.
But, conceding the abstract distinction, and granting, for the sake of the argument only, that the conclusion of the court below might properly be classed, abstractly speaking, as an interpretation, and not a construction, of the statute, we think the contention without merit. It may not be doubted that, in common usage, interpretation and construction are usually understood as having the same significance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ Putting aside for the moment technical objections to the sufficiency of the indictment, it is conceded by both sides that if the statutes which the court below construed be given the meaning which the United States, by the assignments of error, assert is the correct one, an offense against the United States was stated in both counts of the indictment. The construction of the statutes, therefore, is the real question for decision. We propose to examine the statutes applicable to each count separately ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ The United States sued to annul certain patents to coal lands on the ground that the land had been purchased by officers and employees of a corporation when the corporation itself was disqualified, because it had already made one entry. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ Nor do we deem it necessary to do more than briefly refer to the elaborate statements at bar concerning constructive crimes and the fear which also found expression in the opinion below, that, if the words 'to defraud in any manner or for any purpose' receive a broad significance, charges of crime may be hereafter predicated upon acts not prohibited and innocuous in and of themselves, and which, when they were committed, might have been deemed by no one to afford the basis of a criminal prosecution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ This follows, because, if the adding by way of amendment of the words 'or of the Secretary of the Interior,' contemplated bringing within the criminal inhibitions of the statute every act of a like nature to those forbidden, done in connection with every subject within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, then the new enumerations made in the amendment were wholly unnecessary, because, without enumeration, they would have been embraced in the statute as amended. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court

“ This was expressly negatived, the court saying (p. 167) :
'It is true, in the present case, that some of the persons who made the entries in question were not, strictly speaking, members of the corporation, but only its employees. But, as they were parties to the alleged scheme, and were, in fact, agents of the defendant in obtaining from the government coal lands that could not rightfully have been entered in its own name, that circumstance is not controlling. . . . ”

Edward Douglass White

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Keitel — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature