◆ SpookStack

4 Gebardi ct al. vs. Enited States. sents to her own transportation. Yet it does not specifically im- pose any penalty upon her, although it deals in detail with the person by whon she is frensperted. dn applying this criminal statute we cannot infer that the mere acquleseene: of the wonitn transported was tntended ty be condemned by the general language pinishing those who aid and assist the transparter any more than it has been inferred that the purchaser of liquor was ta be revarded as an abettor of the Wleval sale. Sfafe v. Feehan, 50 Conn. 92. Lett vo United Staten, 205 Pod. 28; ef. United States v. Farrar, 281 Ul 3. 624, 634. The penalties of the statute are too clearly direeted against the asts of the transporter as distingisher! from the consent of the sublet of the transportation. Soe it was intimated in United Stifes vo Holte, supra, and this comelusion is not disputed by the Government here, whieh eontends only that the conspiracy eharee will Hie though the woman could not coment the substantive offense. Seecmé, We come tins to the main question in the case, whether, adsustting that the woman, by camsenting, has not violated the Mann Act, she may be convicted of a conspiraey with the man to violate it. Seetion 37 of the Criminal Code (18 ToS. Cg 88}, prises a conspiracy by two or more persons ‘te conan wy offense against the United States’. The offense whirl slie is charged with eonspiring te commit is that perpetrated by the man, for it is not qnestioned that in transporting her he contravened $2 of the Mann Aet. Ch Caminettive United Stites, 242 UL. 470. Henee we must decide whether her eanenrrene?, Wiieh wan not eriminal befare the Mann Act. nor punished by it, may, with sat more. support a eonviction nuder the conspiracy section. en- acted many years before. As was said in the Holte ease (p. 144), an agreement te commit an offerse may be criminal, though ifs purpose is ta doe what sone “$3 of the Act GUL S at, $299), diteeted toward the persuasion, induce Inent, enticanent or cocreian af whe proibhited trsportation, alae includes apeeitineily those whe ‘nid or assist 7 ha the induecment ar tte tripasportation. Yet it ie abiviows that these words were not intended to reach the wonrea who, hy sieMligg fu persuasion saiste Un her ayn frie page tian, SO, Aetoof Mureh oo, 807 014 Stat. 470, 48S) exert fer an omitted hot televnut evisions 6.0. Was continues’ frou) that time te tia, in at Hh ON, 27 era. Soe Uurtid Sinies ¢, Gradwetf, tieburdi et al. vs. United States. 5 of the conspirators may he free to do alone.* Ineapacity of one to commit the substantive offense does net necessarily imply that he may with Impurity conspire with others whe are able to commit it.* For it is the golleetive planning of eriminal conduct at which the statute aims. The plan is itself a wrong which, if any act be dose to effect its object, the state has elected ta treat as criminal, Clane v, United States, 159 (3.590, 595. And one may plan that others shall do what he eannot do himself. See Untfed States ¥. Habine- wich, 238 US. 78, 88, 87, But m this case we are eoncerned with something more than an agreement between twa persons for one of them to commit an offense which the other cannot commit. There is the added ele- ment that the offense planned, the criminal sbject of the conspiracy, involves the agreement of the woman to her transportation by the man, which is the very conspiracy charged, Congress set ont in the Mann Aet to deal with cases which fre- qaentiy, io net normally, invelve consent and avreement on the part of the waman to the forbidden transportation. In every case In which she is not intimidated or forved into the transportation, c Yet this acqiiescence, theagrh yn incident of a type of transportation speet- the statute necessarity contemplates her acc en sThe requirement af the statute that the object of the conspiracy be an offen against the Etniled States, necessarily statutory, Unityd Statea t. Thadaon, 7 Craneh 32, aveida the question anueh litigated at cemmon law (see eases cited in Wright, The Law of Criminal Conspiracies [Carson ed. Wae) and in Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, 34 Harv. L. Ree, 493) of the erim- inality of combining ca a6 an act whieh amy one mi lawfully do aigne, Sy it has Iwen held repeatedly that one not a barkrupt may be held guitty wider §47 of conspiring that a bankrupt shall conceal property fram his wACE PLE AL LD TL BL 220 Po 444, certioniri deniod 838 UL 8, 627; Jollit «. United States, 295 Po tot cortionsci denied tnt U2 8. 024; darael +. (nited States, 3 FL (CM) T4320 Kaplan e. United States, 7 FP. (2d) 494, certiorari denied 209 UT 8. 482. Aud see United States c Rudinowieh, 248 [1 8, 78, 80, 87. These eases pro- coved wpan the theory (ee United States t. Rabinowieh, supra, $6) that only & bonkrupt o commit (he substintive offense though we do net intimate that Wheres night not be Well as prineipals under Criminal Code, § 332 (18 U. 8. C, $550), Cf Harron re. United States, SF, (2d) 799, Su Whe mainer Chadwick e United States, 141 Fed. 225, suatained the com vietion of one not an officer of a natiouwl hawk for eonspiting with an offeer fo commit: a erime which only he could emumit. And sce United States s. Martin, 4 C1. Lie, Waited States e, Stevens, 44 Ped. 132, we fea ae Citak afi »$S25. Tapack ¢. United Siaies,