In United States v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense. The defendant, Smith, was charged with the crime of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. The indictment failed to allege that Smith had knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to sustain a conviction, as knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods was an essential element of the offense. The Court reasoned that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the charges against him. As the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Smith, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution or any other law to pass legislation criminalizing polygamy, as it is not an offense against interstate commerce nor does it involve any matter over which Congress has exclusive control. Furthermore, he noted that if such laws were allowed then there would be nothing preventing Congress from passing similar laws for matters outside its jurisdiction like marriage contracts or religious beliefs. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating that allowing this type of legislation could open up a Pandora’s box of potential abuses and should therefore be rejected outright by the Court.