charge that the president knew the official relationship of the cashier to the bank.  As to this, the Court held:


24
"The fourth question is whether it is necessary, in charging the defendant with aiding and abetting Sylvester T. Fuller, the cashier of the bank, with the misapplication of its funds, to charge that the defendant then and there knew that said Fuller was such cashier.  We answer this question in the negative. . . . We do not think it is necessary, in an indictment for this offence, to charge any Scienter more distinctly.  The acts charged against Fuller could only be committed by him by virtue of his official relation to the bank. . . . The knowledge that each had of the official relationof § 660 is merely that the carrier be involved in interstate commerce and that the statutory requirement limiting application of the statute to a "president, director, officer, or manager" was designed as a substantive restriction on the federal law. We find this argument unpersuasive.  It is contrary to the legislative history relating to the predecessor of § 660.


29
One of the major concerns of several senators at the time of the enactment of the original statute was whether the proposed legislation was beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government and therefore an unconstitutional encroachment on the police power of the states. 51 Cong.Rec. 14035-41 (1914).  Serious questions were raised as to whether interstate commerce was a sufficient predicate for such a statute. Id. at 14036. 