40 OCTOBER TERM., 1907. A?ument tor Defendant in Error. 209 U. S political purposes, was, under the circumstances of this case, one which Congress intended to prohibit, and the caurt-will place such reasonable construction on the statute of Congress as tends to give effect to that intention. United Sta? v. U.S. 1. The act of mailing the letter is also within the letter of the statute. There is nothing in � making the physical presence of the person soliciting within the Federal building an essential element of the offense. The act of soliciting was completed when the letter was received and read by the person to whom it was addressed and to whose mind the demand for money therein contained was addressed. Wharton, Conflict of Laws, �2?, 826; Hobart's Rep. (1st Am. ed.) p. 152; Clutterbuck v. Chaffers, 1 Starkit, 471; The King v. Burdett, 4 B. & A. 95; U.S. 257, at?d cases cited; Horner v. United States, 143 U.S. 207, 214; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344; People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509, 529; Simpson v. State, 92 Georgia, Connecticut,' 118, 130. The general effect of these numerous decisions is that the offense is committed at the place where the unlawful act takes effect. If, as seems clear, Congress intended to prohibit the demand of political assessments in Federal buildings, it is a matter of no consequence whether the defendant in making his demands for contributions to the Republican campaign fund was actually in the building or not. He willfully .and knowingly set in motion an agency which resulted in a de- mand on'a Government officer in a Government building, and on well-settled principles it must be held that he committed the offense on forbidden ground. Mr. J. M. McCormick, with whom Mr. F. M. Ether/?e was on the brief, for defendant in error: ' The legislative history of the act o'f Congre&q in question
�
