Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/705

 tJNITBD STATES ». LOUP. 697 �Tbeat, J. The question presented involves the construo- tion of the United States statutes pertaining to internai revenue, and particularly section 3376. The defendant la cbarged in the indictment with having had in his possession internai revenue stamps that had been theretofore used and cancelled. It appears from the arguments and statementa of counsel, rather than otherwise, that the facts are that defendant did have in his possession parts or halves of several etamps which had theretofore been used, which could readily be placed on a package in such a position as to give them the appearance of a complete stamp; but no complete, un- broken or unmutilated stamp. �Under the stipulation of counsel this court la asked to determine -whether, on such a statemeut of facts, the defend- ant can be found guilty of the offence charged under section 3376. �Eeference has been made to many other sections oi the Btatute, supposed to be in fwri materia; and, on the other hand, the rules of construction as to criminal statutes bave been invoked. Where a statute containing many provisions as to distinct subjects, eaoh of which has its own peculiar requirements, is presented for interpretation, the requirements and penalties of one cannot, in a criminal proceeding, be im- ported into another. Stamps, according to the law and regulations, are to be placed on packages of snuff in a pre- scribed manner, whereby the opening of the package will destroy the stamp. As to brewer stamps, the statute is very specifie as to the mode of placing them on the packages and destroying them ; and, as to stamps to be used for some other purposes, it is provided that they shall be "utterly" de- stroyed, etc.; yet as to snuff stamps no such requirement exists, because it is presumed that if attaehed as demanded they will necessarily be ruptured or torn into parts. The fact that more specifie provisions are eontained in the statutes as to other articles would indicate, not that such provisions should obtain as to snufiF, but that snuff stamps were in- tended to foUow a different rule — a rule specifie as to them. �The statute has several provisions which will adequatelj ��� �