32 » rmnnmn anromnn. ’ ‘
may be correctly termed either the alteration of an entry or the making
of an entry. It may appropriately be said of such an act that an "entry
hasbeen made" rather than "altered," because a· new number is the re- ,
sult of the act, and for the reason that anew record is created which
bears different testimony as to the fact or transaction intended to be au-
· thenticated. If attention is paid to the purpose which underlies the law
under which the indictment is framed, there is ample ground to base an
inference that the construction above given is in accordance with the
legislative intent. The statute was obviously enacted to prevent bank
officials and employes from concealing the actual financial condition of
national banking associations, by means of a falsification of any of the
books of account or statements or reports which they are by law required
to make: With this purpose in view, it cannot be supposed for a mo~
ment. that the law was framed with a view of punishing persons who
made original false entries, and, at the same time, of exempting from
punishment those who falsified correctentries previously made, by eras-
ing figures and substituting d‘iii`erent ones in their stead. I think it is
too clear for argument that congress intended, at least, to punish such
acts as are described in the second, fourth, and sixth counts of the inQ
dictment, and I am furthermore of the opinion that, byithe prohibiting
" the making of any false :entry," and imposing a penalty for so doing,
they have used language fully adequate to that purpose. ‘~
For -the purpose of showing that congress did not intend, by section
5209,10 make itan odense to alter entries in the books of national banks,
my attention was called, on the argument, to numerous sections of the
Revised Statutes,whereby it has been made an offense againstthe United
States to alter public books, documents, and instruments, such as court
records, surveys, maps, patents, bonds, treasury notes, powers of attor-
ney, money-orders, etc. An examination of each of those sections-
5394, 5411, 5414, 5415, 5416, 5418, and 5463--shows, however, that
in every instance the word "alter" wasaptly used;`-in every instance
there was an apparent necessity for the use of the word " alter," as it de-
scribed an act not distinctly covered or embraced by any preceding word;
But in thesection under consideration there was no apparent need of
making use of any additional words or phrases; -The section prohibits
· every officer or employeof a national bank from making "any false ene
try in any book, report, or statement." The language so used was suf·
V iiciently comprehensive to forbid a— falsification of the books of a na-
tional bank in any manner, whether it wasaccomplished by an original
false entry or by changing an entry already made. In either event it
would be necessary to write in the books,—to make an entry of some
sort,——and if the words or figures so written falsified the fact or tran—
saction intended to be authenticated, the act would necessarily be within
the prohibition of the statute. » `
As a further reason for sustaining the demurrer it was suggested that
the acts described in the second, fourth, and sixth counts may have
amounted to a forgery. I assume that by this counsel intended to say
that if the act amounted to a forgery defendant cannot be punished un-