In imposing punishment for the former, we must consider on the one hand the gravity of the offence from the public standpoint and the menace to life and property in China from the illicit important and consequent reckless distribution of arms "and munitions. But on the other hand we cannot overlook the fact that the prohibition now invoked exists only by treaty and has so existed for nearly 80 years without previous enforcement, so far as we are aware, by criminal prosecution. Defendant, it appears, moreover, was advised, both professionally and officially, that no such prohibition existed. Ignorance of the law' does not, of course, excuse; but long disuse of a prohibition may serve to give colour to such advice as defendant claims to have relied upon and may properly be considered in fixing the penalty as bearing on the element of intent. In view of the foregoing and of the wide publicity given these first proseeutions under the treaties, we are of the opinion that the deterrent effect of this sentence will be sufficient without subjecting defendant primarily to the extreme penalty and by imposing instead a substantial fine as permitted by the statute penalizing conspiracy.
The defendant is accordingly sentenced in Cause No.. 2317 to pay a fine of $2,500 (Mexican currency), with subsidiary imprisonment (in Bilibid Prison, Manila, Territory of the Philippiness) according to-law in case of non-payment, and the costs of prosecution in said cause.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.