Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Raynor — Opinion of the Court

It is beyond belief that Congress intended to relax the law against counterfeiters at a time when the nation was engaged in financing a war. Such a construction would be neither logical nor reasonable. The section now under consideration is plainly the culmination of a long series of legislative acts, each of which has declared it to be a crime to have possession of paper, counterfeiting the distinctive paper, and suitable to be made into counterfeit obligations. Each change since 1837 was intended to make the possession of counterfeit paper more dangerous for counterfeiters.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Raynor — Opinion of the Court

The provisions of the statute were not meant to cover counterfeiting, or preparations antecedent to counterfeiting. Their whole purpose was to penalize possession or retention by unauthorized persons of the distinctive kind of paper which the Secretary has adopted for the making of the obligations of the United States; language which, as we have said, necessarily imports genuine obligations, because if not genuine they would not be obligations of the United States at all.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black United States v. Raynor — Opinion of the Court

A construction that creates an inconsistency should be avoided when a reasonable interpretation can be adopted which will not do violence to the plain words of the act, and will carry out the intention of Congress. [12]
There is no inconsistency in the act unless it is assumed that the word 'obligations' refers to genuine obligations only. Since words that have one meaning in a particular context frequently have a different significance in another, [13] it is necessary to consider the context of the words 'such obligations,' in order to determine their significance.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature