United States v. Gupta
United States v. Gupta
Opinion of the Court
This is an indictment charging a violation of section 13 of the United States Criminal Code. It accuses defendants that on the 1st day of July, 1915, and continuously thereafter, including the 5th day of March, 1917, within the Southern district of New York and the jurisdiction of this court, “did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously begin and set on foot, and provide and prepare the means for, 'a certain military enterprise, to be carried on from within the territory and jurisdiction of tire United States, and against the territory and dominions of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, a foreign prince with whom the United States of America, at all the times herein mentioned, have been and now are at peace.” The accusation further charges “that the Emperor of Germany was at war with the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, as the defendants and each of them well knew.” That the defendants and each of them, “for the purpose of aiding and assisting in carrying on the military operations by land and sea of the forces of the Empire of Germany, it being desirable and necessary that in the colonies and territories of the King of the‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the Emperor of India, that there should be unrest, revolt, revolution, and mutiny among the citizens and natives in the various provinces and dominions and other portions of the territory of the said King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, and particularly in India, to the end that in such provinces and dominions and other portions of the territory of-the said King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India the unrest, revolt, revolution, and mutiny upon the part of the natives and inhabitants thereof should require that there be stationed and be on duty in, at, and about the places of such unrest, revolts, revolutions and mutinies large numbers of trustworthy and loyal'troops and soldiers, who, were it not for such unrest, revolts, revolutions, and mutinies, would be released for service in the interests, of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, at various points in Europe, Egypt, and other places where the troops of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelaxld and the Emperor of India were in contact with troops of the Emperor of Germany or his allies, and that by reason of the service of such troops and soldiers at the places of such unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies, in the provinces and territories of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India against the troops and forces of the Emperor of Germany and his allies, and that by reason of such unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies, the rule of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India would in some of his dominions and provinces be overthrown, to the great injury and detriment of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India”; and it is
This indictment is demurred to on the ground that it is insufficient in law and does not constitute an offense against the United States.
An indictment has been found against the defendant Gupta, to which he has demurred, and both indictments may be treated together in this memorandum.
It is charged against Gupta, together with Franz von Papen (not indicted), “that he did, within the Southern district of New York, willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously begin and set on foot and provide and prepare the means for certain military enterprise to be carried on from within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and against the territory and dominions of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, a foreign prince with whom the United States of America at all the times mentioned has been and now are at peace.” It is further charged in the indictment “that the Emperor of Germany was at war with the King of - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, as the defendant well knew, and that for the purpose' of doing and assisting and carrying on the military operations by land and sea of the forces of the Emperor of Germany it was desirable and necessary that in the colonies and territory of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the Emperor of India there should be unrest, revolt, rebellion, and mutiny among the citizens and natives in the various provinces and dominions and other portions of the territory of the said King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, and particularly in India, to the end that in such provinces and dominions and other portions of said territory of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India the unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies upon the part of the natives and inhabitants thereof should require that there be stationed and be on duty, in and about the places of such unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies, large numbers of trustworthy and loyal troops and soldiers who, were it not for such unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies, should be released for service in the interests of said King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India, at various points in Europe and other places where the troops of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India were in contact with the troops of the Emperor of Germany or his allies”; and “that by reason of such troops and soldiers at the place of such unrest, revolts, rebellions, and mutinies in the provinces and territories of the King of the United
To this indictment the defendant has demurred on the ground that
Section 13 makes it a crime for any one, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, to begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare, the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.
The acts charged against the defendants in each indictment directly charges them with beginning or setting on foot and preparing the means for a military expedition or enterprise against the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India. It has been held that this section does not require that the expedition should have actually set out or any particular number of men, the crime being completed by the organization only. United States v. Ybanez (C. C.) 53 Fed. 536.
It is sufficient to charge in the indictment that the defendants, by an act the character of which is of a warlike nature, inaugurated and set on foot an enterprise for the furtherance of a military or warlike purpose against a kingdom or country with which the United States are at peace. With a state of war existing between the Empire of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Empire of India, acts on the part of each of the defendants, prepared or begun in this country, even though it anticipated a journey to another land by the defendants, which had for its purpose the creating of unrest, revolt, rebellions, and mutinies among the troops and inhabitants of India, with the sole view of war or military purposes against the ruling power of that province, is a sufficient charge to bring it within the inhibition of the statute. Preparations for, and setting on' foot means of, importing into India large quantities of arms and munitions of war to be supplied to the natives of India and the acceptance of money for this purpose, is a sufficient charge, if true, to charge a crime within section 13.
It was said in United States v. Hart (D. C.) 78 Fed. 868, that the section creates two offenses: First, the setting on foot, within this country, of a military expedition; and, second, providing the means therefor, such as transportation.
I think both the indictments are sufficient in their statement of wrongs committed to charge a crime, and that the demurrers to the indictments should be overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES v. CHAKRABERTY SAME v. GUPTA
- Status
- Published