UNITED STATES V. SIMONS. 713 �but he did unearth the fraud with which they were con- nected, by fumishing information against Lewis, Brown, and Fink, who confessed their guilt and implicated Applebaum, wlio in his turn confessed and caused the arrest of Simona and Burnstine. These parties were all conspirators in the same fraudaient transactions, and it seems to me that the party who furnished the original information upon which a part of the conspirators were arrested, should be considered the informer as to all the conspirators in the same fraud, it appearing that the other conspirators were arrested, not upon information given by any third party, but upon the confes- sions of the parties who had already been arrested. Apple- baum earned immunity from punishment by his voluntary confession, and by the district attorney consenting to make use of his testimony against his co-conspirators, but equitably he is entitled to nothing more. Whisky Cases, 99 XJ. S. 594. Upon the other hand, Brakeman ought not to lose his share of the fine which would have been imposed upon the parties he informed against directly, by their confessing and inculpating others, and thus securing immunity. The inter- est of the informer ought tu be identical with that of the government. The interests of the govemment require the leading members of the conspiracy to be punished. The original informer ought not to lose by this being done. I think this view is borne out by the case of Wescott v. Brad- ford, 4 Wash. 492, in which the court discusses the question how far information given to the collector as to one thing may or may not be considered as extending to others, so as to warrant the conclusion that the forfeiture was recovered in pursuance of such information. The distinction that is taken there is between cases where several parties are impli- cated in a single fraud, and those wherein the discovery of one fraud results in the ferreting out of another fraud of the same description, but not connected with it. �It only remains to consider whether Brakeman is such an oflScer of the United States as is excepted from the operation of the act of 1874, and is disentitled by reason of his officiai ��� �
