some of the states it has been expressly recognized and adopted to this extent by constitutional provisions or by statute.24 Louisiana 25 and New Mexico 26 were originally subject to the civil law, but the common law as to crimes and criminal prosecutions has been adopted by statute in these states to some extent. It was also adopted by the constitution of the republic of Texas and continued in force there after Texas became a state,27 but was later abolished by statute.28 24 See the constitutions and statutes of the various states and the following cases: Alabama. State v. Cawood, 2 Stew. 360. Arkansas. Powell v. State, 133 Ark. 477, 203 S. W. 25. Delaware. State v. Donovan, 5 Boyce 40, 90 Atl. 220. Illinois. Sans v. People, 3 Gilm. 327; Stuart v. People, 3 Scam. 395. Indiana. The common law is adopted, except that all crimes must be defined by statute. Sopher v. State, 169 Ind. 177, 81 N. E. 913, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172, 14 Ann. Cas. 27. See § 22, infra. Kentucky. Nider v. Com. 140 Ky. 684, 131 S. W. 1024, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 1246. Massachusetts. Com. v. Chapman, 13 Metc. 68; Com. v. York, 9 Metc. 93, 43 Am. Dec. 373; Com. v. Churchill, 2 Metc. 118. Missouri. State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132. Montana. Territory v. Ye Wan, 2 Mont. 478. New Mexico. Ex parte De Vore, 18 N. M. 246, 136 Pac. 47; Territory v. Montoya, 17 N. M. 122, 125 Pac. 622. Rhode Island. State V. Eastern Coal Co., 29 R. I. 254, 70 Atl. 1, 132 Am. St. Rep. 817, 17 Ann. Cas. 96. Vermont. State v. La Forrest, 71 Vt. 311, 45 Atl. 225. And see State v. Hildreth, 82 Vt. 382, 74 Atl. 71, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 551, 137 Am. St. Rep. 1022, 18 Ann. Cas. 661. 25 The statute provides: "All crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors shall be taken, intended, and construed according to and in conformity with the common law of England,'' etc. It has been held that this does not adopt the common law, so as to punish in Louisiana all the crimes known to the common law, but merely adopted the common-law definitions of those offenses declared to be crimes by the act of 1805. State v. Gaster, 45 La. Ann. 636, 12 So. 739; State v. Depass, 31 La. Ann. 487; State v. Smith, 30 La. Ann. 846. Except to this extent, there can be no crime in Louisiana which is not defined and denounced by statute. Except as to the crimes denounced by name in the act of 1805, and which are to be taken according to the common-law definitions, the legislature must define crimes. State v. Bischoff, 146 La. 748, 84 So. 41; State v. Robinson, 143 La. 543, 78 So. 933; State v. Comeaux, 131 La. 930, 60 So. 620; State v. Gaster, 45 La. Ann. 636, 12 So. 739; State v. Davis, 22 La. Ann. 77. See also State v. McCoy, 8 Rob. (La.) 545, 41 Am. Dec. 301. 26 Ex parte De Vore, 18 N. M. 246, 136 Pac. 47; Territory v. Montoya, 17 N. M. 122, 125 Pac. 622; Territory v. Herrera, 11 N. M. 129, 66 Pac. 523; Borrego v. Territory, 8 N. M. 446, 46 Pac. 349; Territory v. Weller, 2 N. M. 470. 27 Grinder v. State, 2 Tex. 338. § 21. Offenses against the federal government and in territory subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the United States the federal courts can exercise such power only as is conferred upon them by Congress, and hence they cannot exercise common-law jurisdiction in criminal cases. Therefore, before any act can be punished as a crime against the United States, Congress must make it a crime, affix a punishment, and declare the court which shall have jurisdiction of the offense.29 But where Congress merely designates an offense by its common-law name without defining it, the commonlaw may be looked to for a definition.30 There are no common-law crimes in Porto Rico,31 Hawaii,32 the Panama Canal Zone,33 or the Philippines.34 But by acts of Congress the common law as to crimes is made applicable in the United States court for China,35 in Alaska,36 and in the District of Columbia.87 29 United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677, 36 L. Ed. 591, 12 Sup. Ct. 764; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159, 11 Sup. Ct. 559, aff'g 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 113, 9 L. R. A. 236, 23 Am. St. Rep. 820; United States v. Britton, 108 U. S. 199, 27 L. Ed. 698, 2 Sup. Ct. 531; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 25 L. Ed. 648; United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 32, 3 L. Ed. 259; United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. (U. S.) 384, 1 L. Ed. 426; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 415, 4 L. Ed. 124; Mossew v. United States, 266 Fed. 18; Hamburg-Ameri can Steam Packet Co. V. United States, 250 Fed. 747, certiorari denied 246 U. S. 662, 62 L. Ed. 927, 38 Sup. Ct. 333; United States v. Miller, 236 Fed. 798; Oliver v. United States, 230 Fed. 971, certiorari denied 241 U. S. 670, 60 L. Ed. 1230, 36 Sup. Ct. 721 (mem. dec.; Morris v. United States, 161 Fed. 672, on rehearing 168 Fed. 682, certiorari denied 214 U. S. 527, 53 L. Ed. 1068, 29 Sup. Ct. 704; United States v. Cardish, 143 Fed. 640; United States v. Dietrich, 126 Fed. 676; United States v. Wynn, 9 Fed. 886; Barclay v. United States, 11 Okla. 503, 69 Pac. 798. 30 Oliver V. United States, 230 Fed. 971, certiorari denied 241 U. S. 670, 60 L. Ed. 1230, 36 Sup. Ct. 721 (mem. dec.); United States v. Cardish, 143 Fed. 640; In re Greene, 52 Fed. 104; United States v. Coppersmith, 4 Fed. 198. And see § 69, infra. 31 People v. Llauger, 14 Porto Rico 534. 32 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 47 L. Ed. 1016, 23 Sup. Ct. 787. 33 Canal Zone v. Blissett, 2 Canal Zone 79. 34 Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Philippine 308; United States v. Cuna, 12 Philippine 241. 35 Act June 30, 1906, ch. 3934, § 4; 34 Stat. pt. 1, p. 814. Biddle V. United States, 156 Fed. 759. 36 In re Burkell, 2 Alaska 108. And see McClosky v. Pacific Coast Co., 160 Fed. 794. 37 Act of Congress of Feb. 27, 1801 (2 Stat. at L. 103, ch. 115), providing that the laws of Maryland as they then existed should continue and be in force in the District of Columbia operated to perpetuate and keep in force in the district the common law as it existed in Maryland at that time. Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 225, 23 L. § 22. Abolition of the common law. In some states the common law of crimes has been so far abolished by statute that no act is punishable as a crime unless it is made so by statute.88 Even in these states, however, the principles of the common law are generally recognized for the purpose of construing a statute which provides for the punishment of a crime without defining it further than by giving its Ed. 308; United States v. Simms, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 252, 2 L. Ed. 98; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 524, 9 L. Ed. 1181; Harrison v. Moyer, 224 Fed. 224; State v. Cummings, 33 Conn. 260, 89 Am. Dec. 208; Hamilton v. United States, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 382; Tyner v. United States, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 324; Hill v. United States, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 395; De Forest v. United States, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 458; D. C. Code, §1 (31 Stat. at L. 1189, Ch. 854); Palmer v. Lenovitz, 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 303. 88 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: Georgia. Jenkins v. State, 14 Ga. App. 276, 80 S. E. 688. Indiana. Hinshaw v. State, 188 Ind. 147, 122 N. E. 418; McDaniels v. State, 185 Ind. 245, 113 N. E. 1004; Sopher v. State, 169 Ind. 177, 81 N. E. 913, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172, 14 Ann. Cas. 27; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N. E. 631; Stephens v. State, 107 Ind. 185, 8 N. E. 94; Jones v. State, 59 Ind. 229; Hopewell v. State, 22 Ind. App. 489, 54 N. E. 127; State v. Sullivan County Agricultural Society, 14 Ind. App. 369, 42 N. E. 963. Iowa. State v. Clough, 181 Iowa 783, 165 N. W. 59; State v. Dailey, 127 Iowa 652, 103 N. W. 1008; Estes v. Carter, 10 Iowa 400. Kansas. State v. Young, 55 Kan. 349, 40 Pac. 659. Louisiana. With some exceptions, no act is a crime unless defined by statute. See § 20, supra. Michigan. In re Lambrecht, 137 Mich. 450, 100 N. W. 606; In re Lamphere, 61 Mich. 105, 27 N. W. 882. Minnesota. State v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153, 39 N. W. 305. Nebraska. Kinnan v. State, 86 Neb. 234, 125 N. W. 594, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 478, 21 Ann. Cas. 335; Lange v. Royal Highlanders, 75 Neb. 188, 106 N. W. 224, 110 N. W. 1110, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 666, 121 Am. St. Rep. 786; State v. De Wolfe, 67 Neb. 321, 93 N. W. 746. New York. People v. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373, 99 N. E. 841, Ann. Cas. 1914 B 243, aff'g 147 App. Div. 436, 132 N. Y. Supp. 747. Ohio. State v. Schultz, 96 Ohio St. 114, 117 N. E. 30; State v. Lingafelter, 77 Ohio St. 523, 83 N. E. 897; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59, 63 N. E. 607, 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Mitchell v. State, 42 Ohio St. 383; Smith v. State, 12 Ohio St. 466, 80 Am. Dec. 355; Allen v. State, 10 Ohio St. 287. Oklahoma. Stewart v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 564, 109 Pac. 243, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 505. Oregon. State v. Rader, 94 Ore. 432, 186 Pac. 79; State v. Smith, 56 Ore. 21, 107 Pac. 980; State v. Stephanus, 53 Ore. 135, 99 Pac. 428, 17 Ann. Cas. 1146; State v. Gaunt, 13 Ore. 115, 9 Pac. 55. Texas. Ex parte Lingenfelter, 64 Tex. Cr. 30, 142 S. W. 555, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 765; Albertson v. State, 5 Tex. App. 89. common-law name.39 And this has been held to be true even where it is expressly declared by statute that crimes and misdemeanors "shall be defined," and "the punishment therefor fixed," by statute, and not otherwise, 40 although there is some authority to the contrary.41 The question, what constitutes an implied repeal of the common law, will be considered in another section.42 § 23. Acts and omissions prohibited and punished. It may be laid down, as a general rule of the common law, that any act, or any omission of a legal duty, that injures or tends to injure the community at large to such an extent that public policy requires the state to interfere and punish the wrongdoer, is a crime, and renders the wrongdoer liable to indictment.48 And this is true although no exact precedent 39 Indiana. State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 117; Hopewell v. State, 22 Ind. App. 489, 54 N. E. 127. Iowa. State v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 166 Iowa 494, 147 N. W. 874; State v. Twogood, 7 Iowa 252. Kansas. State v. Young, 55 Kan. 349, 40 Pac. 659. Michigan. In re Lambrecht, 137 Mich. 450, 100 N. W. 606; In re Lamphere, 61 Mich. 105, 27 N. W. 882. Nebraska. Kinnan v. State, 86 Neb. 234, 125 N. W. 594, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 478, 21 Ann. Cas. 335; State v. De Wolfe, 67 Neb. 321, 93 N. W. 746. Oklahoma. Crowell v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 148, 117 Pac. 883; Stewart v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 564, 109 Pac. 243, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 505; Shires v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 89, 99 Pac. 1100. Oregon. State v. Rader, 94 Ore. 432, 186 Pac. 79; State v. Stephanus, 53 Ore. 135, 99 Pac. 428, 17 Ann. Cas. 1146; State v. Gaunt, 13 Ore. 115, 9 Pac. 55. See also § 69, infra. Where the statute provides that no person shall be punished for any act or omission unless the same is made a penal offense and a penalty is affixed by statute, it is not necessary that offenses shall be defined further than by using a name known to the common law. Prindle v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 551, 21 S. W. 360, 37 Am. St. Rep. 833; Ex parte Bergen, 14 Tex. App. 52. 40 Sopher v. State, 169 Ind. 177, 81 N. E. 913, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172, 14 Ann. Cas. 27; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N. E. 631; State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 117. 41 Under a former Texas statute to this effect it was held necessary to expressly define the offense, and that merely giving it a common-law name was not enough. State v. Foster, 31 Tex. 578; Wolff v. State, 6 Tex. App. 195. 42 See § 79, infra. 43 In the case of Com. v. McHale, 97 Pa. St. 397, 39 Am. Rep. 808, where fraud in an election of public officers was held a misdemeanor at common law, it was said: "We are of opinion that all such crimes (acts) as especially affect the public society are indictable at common law. The test is not whether precedents can be found in the books, but whether they injuriously affect the public policy and economy." See also Walsh v. People, 65 Ill, 58, 16 Am. Rep. 569. "Whatever acts are wicked and for punishing the particular act in question can be found.44 But an act which injures a single individual only, or a few individuals, and does not injure or threaten the other members of the community to such an extent as to require interference and punishment by the state, is a mere private wrong, and must be left to be redressed in a civil action by the party or parties injured.45 It is also a misdemeanor at common law to wilfully disobey any statute of the realm by doing any act which it forbids, or by omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, and which concerns the public, or any part of the public, unless it appears from the statute that it was the intention of the legislature to provide some other penalty for such disobedience.46 The particular crimes prohibited and punished at common law will be considered and explained in subsequent chapters.47 III. THE STATUTE LAW A. Power of Congress and Legislatures § 24. Power of Congress - In general. Congress has no inherent power, but has such powers only as have been expressly or impliedly conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States.48 The immoral in themselves, and directly By the common law, all immoral 44 See § 19, supra. 45 Kilpatrick v. People, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 277; Com. v. Webb, 6 Rand. (Va.) 726; Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burr. 1125, 1 W. Bl. 273. And see § 2, supra. 46 Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, art. 124; Turnpike Road Co. v. People, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 267; People v. Stevens, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 341; State V. Parker, 91 N. C. 650; Rex v. Wright, 1 Burr. 543; Rex v. Harris, 4 T. R. 205. This principle would apply to a wilful omission to repair a public highway, in obedience to a statute. See Turnpike Road Co. v. People, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 267; Reg. v. Bamber, 5 Q. B. 279. 47 See Ch. 9-47, infra. In the above chapters will be found a discussion of whether the crimes there considered were offenses at common law. 48 House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 55 L. Ed. 213, 31 Sup. Ct. 234, aff'g 227 Mo. 617, 127 S. W. 305; Keller v. United States, 213 U. S. 138, 53 L. Ed. 737, 29 Sup. Ct. 470, 16 Ann. |