Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Stevenson (No. 2)

United States v. Stevenson (No. 2), 215 U.S. 200 (1909)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1909-11-29
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court. This casé was argued and submitted with' No. 292, just decided. The indictment herein in its second count charges a conspiracy, under § 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to commit the offense of assisting alien contract laborers to migrate into the United States, in violation of the statutes of the United States. Inasmuch as the court below . had already reached the conclusion, in considering the former case (No. 292, ante), that assisting alien contract laborers was not punishable as a crime by indictment under the Immigration Act, it held that it followed that to conspire to assist such migration was not an offense against the United States within the meaning of § 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Stevenson (No. 2). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Conspiracy Where Congress has made an act a crime and indictable, two or more persons who conspire to commit that act conspire to commit an offense against the United States within the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 5440; accordingly, a conspiracy to assist alien contract laborers to migrate into the United States in violation of § 4 of the Immigration Act of 1907 is an offense against the United States under § 5440. 215 U.S. 200 (No. 293)
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Punishment — Legislative Power Congress has the power to regulate the punishment of crimes, and it may affix a greater punishment to a conspiracy to commit an offense than is denounced against the offense itself; the severity of the punishment is a matter for the legislative body having power to regulate the subject. 215 U.S. 200 (No. 293) (citing Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590)