Burroughs v. United States
Encyclopedia
Burroughs v. United States 290 U.S. 534 (1934) is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
which upheld as constitutional the financial disclosure and reporting requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
. The court also held that certain counts incorporated by description in other counts of an indictment
may be considered in determining the adequacy of the original certain counts.
.
James Cannon Jr. was the chairman, and Ada L. Burroughs the treasurer, of a political election committee from July 22, 1928, to March 16, 1929. During that time, the committee accepted contributions and made expenditures to influence the election of presidential and vice presidential electors
in two states. They agreed that they would not file the requisite reports. Cannon, a powerful lobbyist, was investigated by Congress
, and found in violation of the FCPA.
A grand jury
returned an indictment with 11 counts against Burroughs and Cannon. The first eight counts alleged a substantive violation of the Act, but poorly described the crimes. A ninth count against Burroughs more specifically alleged a violation of the Act. A tenth count made a conspiracy charge against Cannon based on the ninth charge.
Cannon and Burroughs claimed that that each count of the indictment failed to allege an offense under the FCPA, and that the FCPA violated Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
The district court found all 11 counts of the indictment to be imperfect, rendering judgment on the constitutional violation moot. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the ninth count was specific enough to charge Burroughs with conspiracy. The incorporation by reference of the ninth count by the other counts was sufficient to perfect the remaining counts. It also ruled that the FCPA was not unconstitutional. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
, writing for the majority, argued that the ninth charge contained enough information to uphold all 10 counts in the indictment. The majority did find that there was a failure in the first eight counts to charge an offense under the statute. However, the eight count was described sufficiently. Since the first eight counts referenced the ninth count, that was enough to indict the two individuals. Although the tenth count (conspiracy, against Cannon) was imperfect on its own, it, too, referenced the ninth count. That, the court held, was sufficient to save the tenth count.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Act, the court held that Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect the integrity of the federal election process.
Justice James Clark McReynolds
, however issued a stinging dissent regarding the court's ruling regarding the indictment. He argued that the court should have dismissed nine of the 10 counts.
McReynolds argued that the disagreement existed between the district court and court of appeals justified a refusal to uphold the indictment.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
which upheld as constitutional the financial disclosure and reporting requirements of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
Federal Corrupt Practices Act
The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was a federal law of the United States enacted in 1910 and amended in 1911 and 1925. It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Created by President William H...
. The court also held that certain counts incorporated by description in other counts of an indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
may be considered in determining the adequacy of the original certain counts.
Background
The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as amended in 1925 required political election committees to keep a detailed account of all contributions made to or by the committee. The treasurer of the committee must then file the accounts with the clerk of the United States House of RepresentativesUnited States House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives is one of the two Houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution...
.
James Cannon Jr. was the chairman, and Ada L. Burroughs the treasurer, of a political election committee from July 22, 1928, to March 16, 1929. During that time, the committee accepted contributions and made expenditures to influence the election of presidential and vice presidential electors
United States Electoral College
The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election...
in two states. They agreed that they would not file the requisite reports. Cannon, a powerful lobbyist, was investigated by Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
, and found in violation of the FCPA.
A grand jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
returned an indictment with 11 counts against Burroughs and Cannon. The first eight counts alleged a substantive violation of the Act, but poorly described the crimes. A ninth count against Burroughs more specifically alleged a violation of the Act. A tenth count made a conspiracy charge against Cannon based on the ninth charge.
Cannon and Burroughs claimed that that each count of the indictment failed to allege an offense under the FCPA, and that the FCPA violated Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
The district court found all 11 counts of the indictment to be imperfect, rendering judgment on the constitutional violation moot. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the ninth count was specific enough to charge Burroughs with conspiracy. The incorporation by reference of the ninth count by the other counts was sufficient to perfect the remaining counts. It also ruled that the FCPA was not unconstitutional. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding
Justice George SutherlandGeorge Sutherland
Alexander George Sutherland was an English-born U.S. jurist and political figure. One of four appointments to the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding, he served as an Associate Justice of the U.S...
, writing for the majority, argued that the ninth charge contained enough information to uphold all 10 counts in the indictment. The majority did find that there was a failure in the first eight counts to charge an offense under the statute. However, the eight count was described sufficiently. Since the first eight counts referenced the ninth count, that was enough to indict the two individuals. Although the tenth count (conspiracy, against Cannon) was imperfect on its own, it, too, referenced the ninth count. That, the court held, was sufficient to save the tenth count.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Act, the court held that Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect the integrity of the federal election process.
- While presidential electors are not officers or agents of the federal government (In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379), they exercise federal functions under, and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by, the Constitution of the United States. The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated. To say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard such an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection. Congress, undoubtedly, possesses that power, as it possesses every other power essential to preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption.
Justice James Clark McReynolds
James Clark McReynolds
James Clark McReynolds was an American lawyer and judge who served as United States Attorney General under President Woodrow Wilson and as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court...
, however issued a stinging dissent regarding the court's ruling regarding the indictment. He argued that the court should have dismissed nine of the 10 counts.
- Thus, we have allegations of what are called conspiracies to commit crimes which are nowhere adequately described. And I cannot think that such pleading should find toleration in any criminal action. An indictment ought to set out with fair certainty the charge to which the accused must respond. If crime has been committed, a fairly capable prosecuting officer can definitely describe it.
McReynolds argued that the disagreement existed between the district court and court of appeals justified a refusal to uphold the indictment.
- Here, we have an example of what seems to me inordinate difficulty unnecessarily thrust upon the accused. An experienced trial judge was unable to find proper description of crime in any of the ten counts of the indictment. The Court of Appeals, with a judge of long service dissenting, ruled that every count was sufficient. This Court, being divided, now declares eight of the counts bad, but holds that two are sufficient. Surely, such contrariety of opinion concerning allegations of the indictment indicates plainly enough that no man should be required to go to trial under it.