Noah Haynes Swayne

Name: United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court
Author: Noah Haynes Swayne

United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Noah Haynes Swayne. It explores elements such as the United States, section and defendant.

Quotes from United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ We are not unmindful that penal laws are to be construed strictly. It is said that this rule is almost as old as construction itself. But whenever invoked it comes attended with qualifications and other rules no less important. It is by the light which each contributes that the judgment of the court is to be made up. The object in construing penal, as well as other statutes, is to ascertain the legislative intent. That constitutes the law. If the language be clear it is conclusive. There can be no construction where there is nothing to construe. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ The employment of the defendant was in the public service of the United States. He was appointed pursuant to law, and his compensation was fixed by law. Vacating the office of his superior would not have affected the tenure of his place. His duties were continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary. They were to be such as his superior in office should prescribe.
A government office is different from a government contract. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ It must not be defeated by a forced and over-strict construction. The rule does not exclude the application of common sense to the terms made use of in the act in order to avoid an absurdity, which the legislature ought not to be presumed to have intended. When the words are general and include various classes of persons, there is no authority which would justify a court in restricting them to one class and excluding others, where the purpose of the statute is alike applicable to all. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ We are also of the opinion that the act prescribes punishment for the offence with which the defendant is charged.
The first part of the sixteenth section declares, that if any officer to whom it applies shall convert to his own use, loan, deposit in bank, or exchange for other funds, except as permitted by the act, any of the public money intrusted to him, 'every such act shall be deemed and adjudged to be an embezzlement,' and is made a felony. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ He was a public officer. The General Appropriation Act of July 23d, 1866, [1] authorized the assistant treasurer, at Boston, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, to appoint a specified number of clerks, who were to receive, respectively, the salaries thereby prescribed. The indictment avers the appointment of the defendant in the manner provided in the act.
An office is a public station, or employment, conferred by the appointment of government. The term embraces the ideas of tenure, duration, emolument, and duties. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ The rule of strict construction is not violated by permitting the words of the statute to have their full meaning, or the more extended of two meanings, as the wider popular instead of the more narrow technical one ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ They are without effect as to the subordinates, to whom they are inapplicable. They do not take offenders of that class out of the penal and other provisions of the statute, which must be conceded otherwise to embrace them. The broad language of the provision in the preceding sixth section, which has been referred to, is coupled with no qualification whatever, expressed or implied.
If the subordinates are not within the act, there is no provision in the laws of the United States for their punishment in such cases. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court

“ So far as those laws are concerned they may commit any of the crimes specified with impunity. We think it clear that it was not the intention of Congress to leave an omission so wide and important in the act, and our minds have been brought satisfactorily to the conclusion that they have not done so. ”

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Hartwell — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature