◆ SpookStack

Wit * hoceisennmenmanennsnenianniill J . ey 2 McBoyle vs. United States. * calls up the picture of a thing moving on land. Thus in Rev. Sta. § 4, intended, the Government suggrests, rather to enlarge than to restrict the definition, vehicle includes every contrivance capable of being used ‘‘as a means of transportation on Jand’’, And this is repeated, expressly excluding aircraft, in the Tariff Act, June 17, 1930, ¢. 997, § 401 (b); 46 Stat. 590, 708. So here, the phrase under discussion calls up the popular picture. For after including automebile truck, automobile wagon and motor cycle, the words “any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails’’ still indicate that a vehicle im the popular sense, that is a vehicle running on land is the theme. It is a vehicle that runs, not something, not commonly called a vehicle, that flies. Airplanes were well known in 1919 when this statute was passed, but it is ad- mitted that they were not mentioned in the reports or in the de- bates in Congress. It is impossible to read words that so carefully enumerate the different forms of motor vehicles and have no refer- ence of any kind to aircraft, as including airplanes under a term that usage more and more precisely confines to 8 different class. The counsel for the petitioner have shown that the phraseology of the statute as to motor vehicles follows that of earlier statutes of Connecticut, Delaware, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri, not to men- 4ion the late Regulations of Traffic for the District of Columbia, “Title 6, ch. 3, § 242, none of which can be supposed to leave the earth. Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that & fair warning should be given te the world in language that the common World will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. When a rule of conduct is laid down in words that evoke in the common mind only the picture of vehicles moving on land, the statute should not be extended to aircraft simply because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used United States v. Thind, 261 U. 8. 204, 209. Judgment reversed.