UNITED STATES V, LONG, ���879 ���stamps have not been placed and cancelled. Congress has ia inuch power tb say the tax shall be paid in a particular way.^that ie, by- stamps, — as it has to impose any tax, and all its requiroments in that behalf must be complied with. Considerations of value and purpose, and payment of the tax, might be addressed to the proseouting officers, but this provision of the statute is quite too plain and imperative for the court to limit its obvious meaning. �The instructions of the court were correct, andthere must be judg- ment on the verdict. ���United States v. Long. (Otreuit Court, E. D. Georgia. December, 1881.) �1. EMBEZZIiKMBNT BT PoSTAL BmPI.OTE— VebBAL OMISSIONS DT StATCTB. �Section 279 of the act approved June 8, 1872, itself a revision, has been tran- scribed Verbatim into section 5467 of the Revised Statutes, until the latter and concluding part of the section is reached, when the words " every such per- son shall, on conviction thereof, for every such ollence," have been omitted, and no penalty is preacribed for any ofEence under that section save for ateal- ing the valuable contents of a letter. The section does not cover the oifence of embezzling a letter with valuable contents. �Indictment for Embezzling Letters by a Person in the Postal Serv- ice. On motion to quash. �E. Dimnell, Dist. Atty., for the United States. �J. Lyons, for defenee. �Pardee, g. J. In the revision of the laws to make up what are now known as the Revised Statutes, an error has been undoubtedly made in regard to the crime of embezzling letters by persons em- ployed in the postal service. Section 5467, Rev. St. �Section 279 of the act approved June 8, 1872, — which act was a revision, — has been transcribed verbaeim until the latter and con- cluding part of the section is reached. The words "every such per- son shall, on conviction thereof, for every such offenee," have been omitted, and as the section now reads no penalty is prescribed for any offenee under that section, save for stealing the valuable con- tents of a letter by an employe in the postal service. �By no grammatical construction, nor by any reasonable intend- ment, can the section be made to cover the offenee of embezzling a letter with i valuable contents, such as is charged in- the indictment ��� �
