Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/252

 238 FEDERAI; BBPOBTEB, �from out the water.or while cast away upoi» the shore. From the moment ot the "wreck, or commencement of the distress, until restored to their rightful owner, the goods are within the protection of this statute, into whosesoever hands they corne wlth knowledge that they belong to the wrecked or distressed vessel. Nor is the sniallness of their value at allmaterial. Whether by efflux of time, the length of distance to which they hare been carried by the cur- rent or otherwise, or the conduct of the owners of the goods in abandoning them, they ever cease to be protected by this statute, we need not inquire, becE^use, under the circumstances of their case, as shown by the proof, there was no such lapse of time, distance from the wreck, or abandonment as would protect the defendant. We are not authorized by the use of the word 'steal' in this section, nor Other words used in describing this oiience, to import into this statute from the common or statutory laws of England or the state the elements of the crime of larceny of goods upon land as known to those laws. No specifie intent is necessary to constitute this ofEence, and any intent is unlawful and suBlcient for the guilt of the ofEender, except that alone of tak- ing the goods for the purpose of restoring them to the master or other offlcei of the unfortunate vessel, or to their ultimate rightful owner. If a person near thewireck does not intend to restore the goods, or intends to make any other use of them than preserving them for the master or owner of the vessel, or owner of the goods, he must let them alone or he violates this statute. Nor is the time when the unlawful intent is conoeived material. If the acclised takes the goods with the lawful intent to preserve and restore them, and afterwards yields to the temptation of avaiice or cupidity, and couverts or destroys them, he violates this statute. �"Again, the manner of taklng is Wholly immaterial, whether by open force or stealth, or otherwise. The words of this statute are sweeping and com- prehensive.; They include all unlawful taking, whether on the facts the crime at common law would be piracy, robbery, lar43eny simple, mixed, or compound, malicious misehiefi or what not; and includes such taking as would, under statutory offences, be called embezzlement, crimiual or fraudulent breach of trust. To illustrate: At common law, if y ou givo your goods to the master of avessel to be carried asfreight, and he appropriates or couverts or destroys the whole cargo or package, he is not guilty of larceny, but only a breach of trust; but if he breaks the package and takes a part, he is guilty of larceny. Now, we have no such reflnement in this statute, and, if the vessel be wrecked or in distress at the time of the taking, the master would be guilty, if not of stealing, certainly of plundering, and would be caught by this statute in a crime, as he should be. This statute is not, gentlemen of the jury, a dead letter, as bas been said by counsel; nor does ignorance of it at all excuse the crime. The act of taking for your own use, or to destroy or otherwise deapoil the owner of goods that are wrecked, either from the wreok or afloat, is in itself morally wrong, and it must so occur to every man whose sensibilities are not bluntedby avarice, and that it is against common right to do it. It may not be against common law, but every man should expect to fmd some law in some statute somewhere to punish it. Untortuuately, human experi- ence teaches us that when a disaster occurs by flre, wreck, flood, or storm, .and the property. of : the victims is left unprotected by the ordinary care and ��� �