◆ SpookStack

6 Gebard: ct al. vs. Untied States. fically dealt with by the statute, was not made a crime under the Mann Act itself. Of this class of casey we say that the substantive offense conteniplated by the statute itself involves the same eom- bination or cemmunity of purpos® of two persons only which is prosvented here as conspiracy. If this were the only case covered by the Act, it would be within those decisions which hold, von. sistently with the theory upon which conspira¢ies are punished, that where it is impossible under any eircumstances to commit the substantive offense without cooperative action, the preliminary agreement between the same parties to eommit the offense is not an indictable conspiracy either at eommon law, Shannen aad Nugent vo Commonwealth, 14 Pa. St. 226; Miles v. State, 58 Ala. 390; ef. State vo Law, 18% Lowa H10; see Stufe cr rel. Durner y, Huegin, 110 Wis, 189, 243. or under the federal statute." See United States v. Hatz, 271 U.S. 854, 355; Norris v. United States, 84 FL (2h) 889, 841, reversed on other grounds, 281 (LS. 619; United States v. Dietrich, 126 Fed. 664, 687. But erinunal trans- portation under the Mann Act may be effreted without the woman ‘8 consent as in cases of intimidation or force (with whieh we are net now concerned). We assime, therefore, far present purposes, as Was Sugeested in the Holle case, supra, 145, that the decisions last incntioned do not in all strictness apply.’ We de not rest our decision upon the thenry of those eases, nor upon the reluted one that the attempt is to prosecute ag conspiracy acts identical with sThe role was applied in United Mates 1, N.Y. (. & HOR. RB. o., I4fi Fed, 298; Tuited States r. Sager, 49 PL (2d) 725. Ta the following cuses Ot was reeapiized and held inapplicable for the reason that the sub- stantive crime cendil be committed hy a single individual Chadwick e. United States, 141 Fed. 235; Laughter 1. United States, 959 Fed, 94; Tasan- aky ev. United States, 31 FL (2d) M46, cortionuri denial 279 U.S. ATI Phe con: spiracy was alse deaned eriminal where it contemplated the cooperation af a Greater number af parties than were neevssury fo the commissien of the princspal offense, as in Themas v. United States, 140 Fed, a97; MeKnight v. United States, 8952 Fed, 647: ef. Vannata cv. United States, 249 Ped. 424; Ex parte O'Leary, O8 FL (2d) au, Compare Queen v. Whitchurch, 24 Q. BL. 420, Wt should be noted that there are many cases not constituting ‘a serious and substantially continued group sehome for cooperative Jaw breaking?’ which may well fall within the reesmmendation of the 7925 eonfrrener of senior circuit judges thay the couspiriey indictment be adapted ‘only after a careful conelusion that the pablie interest se requires.’ Att'y Gen, Rep, 1923, pp. 5, 6. ay Gebardi et al. vs. United States. T the substantive offense. United States v. Dieirvch, 126 Fel. Ot We place it rather upon the ground that we peree ve ene failure of the Mann Act to condemn the woman ‘8 partic eennes those transportations which are effected with her mere see evidence of an affirmative legislative policy to leave na “a ie ence unpunished, We think it a necessary imp teatio® nen policy that when the Mann Act and the conspiracy tate aa be construed tugether, as they necessarily would be, ne me ticipation which the former contemplates ag an insepara annie of all cases in which the woman is 8 voluntary agent a’ a able dees not punish, was Dot automatically to be made pon we under the latter. It would contravene that policy a °! that the very passage of the Mann Act effected a withcrene PS et von spiracy statute of that immunity which the Mann Ac a is not to be supposed that the consent of an oa ee son to adultery with a married person, where the latter ere guilty of the substantive offense, would render the oe nae tor or a conspirater, compare In Re Couper, 162 Cal. | ye vn the acquiescence of a woman under the age of consent wou mee her a co-conspirator with the man to commit ened rape pon herself. Compare Queen v. Tyrrell Dass! 1 QB. 710. P i determinative of this case, is the same. a the evidence before us the woman petitidner has not violated the Mann Act and, we hold, is not guilty of a conspiracy ta _ _ As there is no proof that the man conspired with anyone ee bring about the transportation, the convietions of both pe’ must Be Reversed. Mr. Justice Carpozo concurs in the result. A true copy. Test : Clerk, Supreme Court, U.S.