44 O/?TOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. ?09 U. 2. lations as to what the position would .have been if the receiver had put the letter in his pocket and had readit later at home. Offenses usually depend for their completion upon events that are not wholly within the offender's control' and that may turn out in different ways. No difficulty is raised by the coupling of. solicitation and receipt in the statute. If receipt required personal presence, it still would be obvious that "solicit in any manner whatever" was a broader term. But the cases that have been relied upon to establish that the solicitation did not happen in the build- ing, although inadequate for that, do sufficiently show that the money might be receiv?l there without the personal presence of the defendant. If, in answer to the defendant's letter, the parties addressed had posted money to him in the building where they were employed, the money undoubtedly would have been received there. To sum up, the defendant solicited money for campaign purposes, he did not solicit udtil his lette?' actually was received in the building, he did solicit ?when it was received and read ?her% and the solicitation was in the pla?e where the..letter was received. We observe that this is the opinion expressed by the Civil Service Commission in a note upon this section, and the principle of our decision is similar to' that recognized in several? cases in this court. U.S. 207, 21?; Burton v. United $tate?., 202? U?S. 344, 387, et SeelS' We do not cite th?em more at length, as the only dis- pute possible is on the meaning of th? particular words that We may add that this case does not raise the questions presented by an act done in one jurisdiction and producing effgcts in another Which threatens the actor with punishment if it can catch him. Decisions in that class of cases, however, illustrate the indisputable general proposition that a sometimes may be p?nished where he has .brought .conse- quences to pass, although he was not there in person. They. are dted in.In. re Palliser, 8?pra: Here the defendant was
�
