126 UPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE. July Term,

1Panam a^ Railroad stores, raises the only presumption that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed.
The laws of the Canal Zone, section 197, page 188, read: "A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomnplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense:- and the corroboration is not sufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. "
" The corroboration is not sufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." Then what shall be said of this case where the evidence does not show in corroboration the commission of the offense?
Under the section above, none would contend that the accused should be convicted if Brown were an accomplice. But the Government contends the laws of conspiracy sustain the conviction, and that Brown wvas not an accomplice and base this on the fact that he was not indicted, and that they used him only as a witness. Unfortunately for this contention, this evidence shows that he not only permitted others to steal and assisted them therein, but stole abundantly himself. These acts made him an accomplice. The Government further contends that great latitude is given in the introduction of evidence in cases of conspiracy. This is true! lbut such liberality does not change the burden of proof; does not deprive the accused of the benefit of every reasonable doubt, nor justify conviction on no evidence other than that of an uncorroborated conspirator.
Under the universal and elementary rules of evidence, the statements, admissions and declarations of co-defendants, accomplices and conspirators, made and uttered after the commission of the crime, or not in furtherance of the conspiracy, or after the termination of the conspiracy, can be received only against him wvho made or uttered them. This position is supported by the Government's brief, by all tile text books to which the Court had access and by an unbroken line of decisions.
" Any declarations made by any of the parties in the absence of the others during the pendency of the illegal enter-

126