Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/706

 698 rBDCSAli SEPOBTIB. �protect the govemment against fraud bj manufacturera or dealers in snuff withont importing into section 3376 word» not there. It -vFould have been very easy for congress to have enacted that the possession of any part of a stamp previously used should be punishable, if auoh had been the purpose ; or it might have been enacted that the possession of parts which were capable of being united or reunited, etc., should be an offence. When the specifie mode of using stamps for tobacco and snuff, as prescribed by the statutes and regulations thereunder, is considered, it is evident that section 3376 contemplated stamps detached as a whole, and not the mere possession of fragments of stamps, no matter how capable of being used. �If stamps previously used are again affixed to a package, or if not destroyed when the package is emptied, etc., the section provides for appropriate penalties. Why, then, should a court go beyond the terms of the section to declare that to be an offence, by construction, which the statute does not make an offence, especially when the same section makes punishable any failure to destroy the stamp on opening the package, or any affixing of the stamp to a new package ? �The question must be resolved in favor of the defendant, although the facts stated indicate a fraudulent purpose on his part. �McCbaey, J., concurs. ���Ameeioan Union Telbgraph Co, v. Bell Telephonb Co. �(Circuit Oowt, JS. D. Missouri- April 12, 1880.) �Mandamus— JURisDiCTiON OF THB OrRCtTn- COURTS. — The junsdictioii of the circuit courts in mandamus proceedings is not enlarged by the act ot 1875. �Motion for discharge of order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue. �Cli?ie, Jamison & Day, for petitioner. Edmund T. Allen, for respondent. ��� �