DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. 346 U.S. The practice now sanctioned is a plain violation of the command of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth (see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 238), that no man can be compelled to testify against himself. That should be the guide to our decisions until and unless the Fifth Amendment is itself amended to incorporate the rule the Court today announces. *From the undisputed facts it seems clear that these confessions would be condemned if the constitutional school of thought which prevailed when Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596, Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U. S. 62, and Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68, were decided still was the dominant one. Syllabus. BRIDGES ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 548. Argued May 4, 1953.-Decided June 15, 1953. In 1945, petitioners testified in a naturalization hearing which resulted in petitioner Bridges' admission to citizenship. In 1949, all three were indicted under § 37 of the old Criminal Code, 35 Stat. 1096, now 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 371, for conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the proper administration of its naturalization laws, Bridges was indicted under § 346 (a) (1) of the Nationality Act of 1940 for testifying falsely in the naturalization proceeding that he was not and had not been a member of the Communist Party, and petitioners Schmidt and Robertson were indicted under § 346 (a) (5) of the same Act for wilfully and knowingly aiding Bridges to obtain a certificate of naturalization by false and fraudulent statements. Held: The general three-year statute of limitations, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V), § 3282, is applicable to each of the offenses charged, and the indictment came too late. Pp. 210-228. 1. The running of the general three-year statute of limitations was not suspended by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act. in relation to the offenses charged in any of the counts. Pp. 215224. (a) The Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies to offenses involving the defrauding of the United States in any manner, but only when the fraud is of a pecuniary nature or at least of a nature concerning property; and none of the offenses here charged were of such a nature. Pp. 215-221. (b) The wartime suspension of limitations authorized by Congress in the language of this Act, or similar language in comparable acts, is limited strictly to offenses in which defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. P. 221. (c) Nothing in § 346 (a) (1) makes fraud an essential ingredient of the offense of making a false material statement under oath in a naturalization proceeding. P. 222. (d) Nothing in § 346 (a) (5) makes fraud an essential ingredient of the offense of aiding someone to commit a violation of Opinion of the Court. 346 U.S. § 346 (a) (1), and the insertion in the indictment of the words "procured by fraud" does not change the result. Pp. 222-223. (e) A charge of conspiracy to commit a certain substantive offense is not entitled to a longer statute of limitations than the charge of committing the offense itself. P. 223. (f) That § 37 of the old Criminal Code, now 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 371, also applies to conspiracies to defraud the United States "in any manner or for any purpose" does not require a different result as to the charge thereunder in this case. Pp. 223224. 2. The saving clause in § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, codifying the Criminal Code, does not "save" the special five-year statute of limitations of § 346 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 so as to apply it to the violations of the latter Act charged in the indictment. Pp. 224–227. 199 F.2d 811, reversed. The District Court denied petitioners' motions to dismiss their indictments, 86 F. Supp. 922, and they were convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 199 F. 2d 811, and denied rehearing en banc, 201 F. 2d 254. This Court granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 904. Reversed and remanded, p. 228. Telford Taylor argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Norman Leonard and John P. Frank. John F. Davis argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Beatrice Rosenberg, Carl H. Imlay and John R. Wilkins. MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court. In this proceeding we are limited to the consideration of the following questions: (1) is it barred by the statute of limitations and, if not, (2) is it barred by the principles of res judicata, or estoppel, or the Due Process Clause of 209 Opinion of the Court. the Fifth Amendment? For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it is barred by the statute of limitations. We do not reach or discuss the second question. The issues raised by the first question are: 1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act1 has suspended the running of the general three-year statute of limitations 2 in relation to the offenses charged in 3 Count I, under the general conspiracy statute; Count III, under § 346 (a) (5) of the Nationality 5 2. Whether the saving clause in § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, which enacted the present Criminal Code into law, continued in effect the special five-year statute of limitations of § 346 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940' in relation to violations of § 346 (a) of that Act. For the reasons set forth, we reach a negative conclusion on each of the above issues. Petitioner Harry Bridges entered the United States in 1920 as an immigrant seaman from Australia. Subsequently, he defeated two attempts of the United States to deport him because of his alleged Communist Party membership or affiliation. The second such attempt 1 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3287. 2 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 3282. 3 § 37 of the Criminal Code, 35 Stat. 1096, 18 U. S. C. § 88, now 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 371. * 54 Stat. 1163, 8 U. S. C. § 746 (a)(1), now 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1015 (a). 554 Stat. 1164, 8 U. S. C. § 746 (a) (5), now 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 1425. 6 62 Stat. 862. 754 Stat. 1167, 8 U. S. C. § 746 (g). Opinion of the Court. 346 U.S. culminated June 18, 1945, in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135. June 23, 1945, he applied, in the San Francisco office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for a Certificate of Arrival and a Preliminary Form for Petition for Naturalization. August 8, he appeared, with petitioners Schmidt and Robertson, before an examiner for a preliminary examination. Each of the three testified that Bridges was not a member of the Communist Party. September 17, 1945, Bridges appeared in the Superior Court in San Francisco for the naturalization hearing. Schmidt and Robertson testified that they had known Bridges for five years or longer, that he was a resident of the United States during that time and that they vouched for his loyalty to the United States. Bridges gave the following answers under oath: "Q. Do you now, or have you ever, belonged to any organization that advocated the overthrow of the government by force or violence? “A. No. "Q. Do you now, or have you ever, belonged to the Communist Party in the United States? "A. I have not, I do not." He was then admitted to citizenship. May 25, 1949, more than three years later, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California returned the present indictment in three counts. Count I charges the three petitioners with a conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the proper administration of its naturalization laws by having Bridges fraudulently petition for and obtain naturalization by falsely and fraudulently stating to the naturalization court that he had never belonged to the Communist Party in the United States, and that |