new Code contains no minimum fine, and does not denounce the offense as a misdemeanor. In view of the lightness of the punishment and the dire consequences of issuing money ́orders without having received the money therefor, it is believed that Section 210 was intended merely for the punishment of postal employees who through negligence, and not by reason of any fraudulent design, issue a money order without previously having received the money therefor. Practically the entire money-order funds of the government are at the disposal of each employee who has authority to issue moneyorders, and a punishment so light as that affixed under this section would be entirely disproportionate to the grievousness of the offense, and all fraudulent issues, therefore, of money orders, by postal employees, should or may be prosecuted under Section 218 of the new Code, as they were under 5463 of the old statutes and amendments thereto.

§ 69a. Conviction Under One Statute No Bar, When. A conviction under Section 210 would not be a bar to a conviction under Section 218 which follows, for the reason that where an offense is in violation of two different statutes, and a different proof is required to convict under one, different elements or grounds being involved in each, a conviction or acquittal under one statute is not a bar to a prosecution under the other. U. S. vs. Komie, 194, Federal 567; Carter vs. McClaughry, 183 U. S., 365; Barton vs. U. S., 202 U. S., 344; Gavieres vs. U. S., 220 U. S., 338.

$ 70. Counterfeiting Money Orders, Etc., and Fraudulently Issuing the Same Without Having Received the Money Therefor.-Section 218 of the new Code embraces all the features of 5463 of the old statute, the Act of the third of January, 1887, First Supplement, 518, and the Act of the eighteenth of June, 1888, First Supplement, 593, and reads as follows:

"Whoever, with intent to defraud, shall falsely make, forge, counterfeit, engrave, or print, or cause or procure to be falsely made, forged, counterfeited, engraved or printed, or shall willingly aid or assist in falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, engraving, or printing, any order in imitation of or purporting to be a money order issued by the Post-office Department, or by any postmaster or agent thereof; or whoever shall forge or counterfeit the signature of any postmaster, as

sistant postmaster, chief clerk, or clerk, upon or to any money order, or postal note, or blank therefor provided or issued by or under the direction of the Post-office Department of the United States, or of any foreign country, and payable in the United States, or any material signature or endorsement thereon, or any material signature to any receipt or certificate of identification thereon; or shall falsely alter or cause or procure to be falsely altered in any material respect, or knowingly aid or assist in falsely so altering any such money order or postal note; or shall, with intent to defraud, pass, utter, or publish any such forged or altered money order or postal note, knowing any material signature or endorsement thereon to be false, forged, or counterfeited, or any material alteration therein to have been falsely made; or shall issue any money order or postal note without having previously received or paid the full amount of money payable therefor, with the purpose of fraudulently obtaining or receiving, or fraudulently enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly to obtain or receive from the United States or any officer employed, or agent thereof, any sum of money whatever; or shall with intent to defraud the United States or any person, transmit or present to, or cause or procure to be transmitted or presented to, any officer or employee or at any office of the government of the United States, any money order or postal note, knowing the same to contain any forged or counterfeited signature to the same, or to any material endorsement, receipt, or certificate thereon, or material alteration therein unlawfully made, or to have been unlawfully issued without previous payment of the amount required to be paid upon such issue, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

An indictment under the forging or counterfeiting feature of this section must contain no incompatibility of purport and tenor clauses, and it is decidedly the safer plan for the bill to set out in hec verba the instrument, and the pleader must take careful notice that the instrument so set out does not differ in any respect from that portion of the bill giving the purport of the forged instrument.

The old Common Law rule that a fictitious name could not be subject to forgery, for the reason that there would be no one to be defrauded, has a marked exception under this statute. In ex parte Hibbs, 26 Federal, 421, which was a case that arose by reason of a postmaster issuing a moneyorder on the application of a fictitious person payable to a certain bank, to which he at the same time wrote in the name

of such person, directing that the amount of the order be collected and remitted to him in a registered package, which he intercepted as it passed through his office, converting the contents to his own use, the Court held that the Act of the postmaster constituted forgery, both at Common Law and under the statute, to wit, 5463.

In United States vs. Royer, 122 Federal, 844, the government elected to prosecute a clerk in a post-office authorized to issue money orders, who had issued money orders in payment of his private debts, under Section 4046 of the Revised Statutes, for an embezzlement of money order funds. Clearly, he was also guilty of a violation of Section 5463, after having issued the orders without first having received the money therefor, but the decision of the Court in that case shows to what extent an employee empowered to issue money orders may depredate upon the Government funds. In Vives vs. United States, 92 Federal, 355, Judge Pardee, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with reference to the defendant's use of money order funds by drawing money orders without previously receiving the money therefor, and which was a prosecution for embezzlement under 4046, said that the intention of the employee to return the money to the Government when a settlement of his account would have been due was no defense under the law. In United States vs. Long, 30 Federal, 678, Judge Speer, in charging the jury, said that forgery, being the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right, and that one may be guilty of such forgery if he fraudulently signs his own name, although it is identical with the name of the person who should have signed. He further holds in the same case that the signature to a receipt on a money order is a material signature in the meaning of the law.

It may be here remarked that that portion of the statute which relates to the forgery of a material endorsement or signature to a money order or any receipt thereon, is the portion of the law most frequently violated.

It must be continually borne in mind that the indictment must charge, and the proof must show that the forgery or other acts committed under this section were so committed with the intention to defraud. In United States vs. Morris, 16 Blatchf.

(United States), 133, 26 Federal Cases No.

15813, the Court held that even though an indictment charged the defendant with having forged a material endorsement upon a post-office money-order with the intent to defraud a certain private person, the same was sufficient, because it was still an act which the United States had the authority to punish, for the better protection of money orders lawfully issued by the United States.

Judge Thayer, in United States vs. Crecilius, 34 Federal, page 32, said that the word "alter," as used in this statute, described an act or acts not distinctly covered or embraced by any preceding word.

Under the statute as it is now drawn, there is practically no act, alteration, erasure, or change that can be made to a money order with fraudulent intent that is not by some of the terms of the statute fitted with the meaning of the same See Sections 69 and 69a. Also U. S. vs. Komie, 194 Federal, 567.

§ 71. Counterfeiting Postage Stamps, Domestic or Foreign. Sections 5464 and 5465 of the old statutes protected from forging and counterfeiting the stamps and envelopes and other output of the Post-Office Department which were for the purpose of paying postage, whether of this or a foreign country. These two statutes with some change in punishment, have become Sections 219 and 220 of the new Code, and they read as follows:

"Sec. 219. Whoever shall forge or counterfeit any postage stamp or any stamp printed upon any stamped envelope or postal card, or any die, plate, or engraving therefor; or shall make or print, or knowingly use or sell, or have in possession with intent to use or sell, any such forged or counterfeited postage stamp, stamped envelope, postal card, die, plate, or engraving; or shall make or knowingly use or sell, or have in possession with intent to use or sell, any paper bearing the water-mark of any stamped envelope, or postal card, or any fraudulent imitation thereof; or shall make, or print, or authorize or procure to be made or printed, any postage stamp, stamped envelope, or postal card of the kind authorized and provided by the Post-office Department, without the special authority and direction of said Department; or shall, after such postage stamp, stamped envelope, or postal card has been printed, with intent to defraud, deliver the same to any person not authorized by an instrument in writing, duly executed under the hand of the Postmaster General and the seal of the Post-office Department, to re

ceive it, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

"Sec. 220. Whoever shall forge, counterfeit, or knowingly utter or use any forged or counterfeited postage stamp of any foreign government, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

It will be observed that each of the sections fails to include any word with reference to intent, and in the absence of any such word, and under the authority of United States vs. Coppersmith, 4 Federal, 198, and United States vs. Field, 16 Federal, 779, it would seem that an indictment does not have to charge fraudulent intent in alleging the ingredients of a counterfeiting or forging charge. It is quite apparent that the observations in the two cases just cited that these offenses are not felonies, by reason of the repeal of the old statute, when the Act of June 8, 1872, became effective, is forceless under the new sections, because the new Code itself denominates all offenses felonies where the punishment may be confinement for a year.

Notwithstanding the severity of the punishment and the meaning usually given to the words "counterfeit "or "forge" in criminal statutes, which invariably implies venality and corruption, the language of these sections would seem to indicate that it was the intention of Congress to so denounce in definition, and by severe punishment, and to prevent, if possible, even experimenting in the reproduction of facsimiles of postage stamps, envelopes, cards, etc., like those made by the Government, because it may be argued that no one would trouble himself to facsimile such a small article, unless he intended to work injury. On the other hand, this may be one of those statutes in which Congress has neglected to include all of the elements of the offense, and it thereupon devolves upon the pleader to draw his bill sufficiently broad to define the offense, even though the statute does not do so.

§ 72. Misappropriation of Postal Funds or Property by Use or Failure to Deposit.-Section 225 of the new Code, reads as follows:

"Whoever, being a postmaster or other person employed in or connected with any branch of the postal service, shall loan, use, pledge, hypothecate, or convert to his own use, or shall deposit in any bank or exchange for other funds or