Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-07-10
WAsHINeIoN, JuLY 9, 1870.

4
| subscriber 10 your paper, and constant
treader Of II, has noticed several remarks in il,
in relation 10 the competency of tine counsel of
the Unired States to draw proper indictments
against Doctor Watkins for the frauds charged
upon aim. In your paper OF the Sh you use
the following languag "Certainly it is unjust
10 accuse either the Court or Jury with acting
i,p2ropsrly-lhey are under the solemn moDi.
| ton OF an oath Where. then, are we to look
for the cause of the heretofore failure Of this
prosecution and the delay Of justice? We re-
peat, il does appear to us most strange, that,
after the frs, decision Of the Cour. the prose
cutting counsel canno, frame an indictment en-
5.acing the crime they wish 10 al'ege against
him: there appears TO be dilemma In The
case, on either horn of which, il appears TO US,
the prosecuting counsel will find il difficult 10
rest"
. The writer Of this is we'll acquainted with
the prosecuting counsel--he knows them 10 be
gent.emen of high standing and great expert
ence in their protession-and he would not
lightly believe that they had failed 10 frame
good indie 'men;s in the FIRST inslan e; but as
majority Of the Court had decided otherwise,
he does not feel himself at liberty 10 assal that
decision. Blu: when you say that II appears 10
you most strange, -" that, after the first deoi-
Z
not frame an indie tment embracing the crime
thew wish to allege az alnst him." the writer of
this would be glad to know what ground you
/ have for this assertion.
J Since the frs decision Or which you speak,
an indictment was sent 10 the Grand Jury,
charging a forgery in one Of The abstracts sent
10 tn. Office Of the late Fourth Auditor. HE
Grand Jury would not find this bill, with the
! word FORGE in it--,hey returned II "rgno>
! ramus." The counsel for the United States
then seq, them bill containing every word IN.
serted in the former, except he wore Jorge
! They found this a true bill But the Court,
upon argument, decided that this was defect
i've for want Of the word forge"-'hat the
facts found amounted 10 forgery that
! the Jury ough, to have Inserted the 'echnicI
term to make il agood indictment. Upon this
ground this indie mint was quashed / con
perceive no wan ofcompetercY on The part o'
= The counsel tor The United States in preparing
these two last Indictments. Since then, three
other indictments for fraud have bren found by
the Grand Jury These indictments are now
urd,r discussion; and il is yet 10 be ascer aimed
whether they are defective ON not aware
tina, any Other indictments than those here
stated have been presented found by The
Grand Jury since tn- first decision OF the
Court; There is Justice due TO the counsel
Of the Uni ed States, rs well as 10 The Court
aud Grand Jury; and ii there has been such
evidence OF inc"mpetency on thc part OF 'he
I counsel for the United STATES as you have stat
ed, you will he pleased Ia lei the public Know
ir.--u,herwise say tina, You have been mis-
tskcn.
1--WE give place to the above communication
with pleasure, because we entertain The highest
respec, towards the Counsel for the United
S ares, and wish Them success, III their profess
s;onal career. I, is no, worth while, however,
TO GO into an argument with the writer. 1t
would be of no use. The public are already
acquainted with all the facts OF he cas'; and
we do no, think 4 newspaper controversy is
calculated 10 throw any light o" the SUBJECT
Men will have diff rent opinions about The
matter; and we claim no more than an equal
right With The rest Of the people in the enjoy
men, Of our opinion ED GAZETTE