Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-08-17

The National InIelIigencer, after some lie,
marks on he cas- ofthr editor Of thr Baltimore
Republican, whn was broogh before the Grand
Jury, 10 give Information 10 the author of
the lihelous leuers in his paper, now genei ally
attributed to the pen Of Amos Kendall, has the
following observations.
Whie on the subject of Grand Jury proceed
ings, aud IS it is pc haps specially incumbent
on US 10 repel tIe caiumnies with which tina,
boIy has been ass lid, we will use tae coca
sion 10 ro'ice ann,her point on which he con-
duct Of the Jury has been pretended, pos
slbIy. by some, and miSrep'e>en'ed by Others
we mean in regard TO the refu,Dl of he jury %
h,d IN indie menr against T Watkins for }or'
gerry o., as the phrase was, hnd'g hr Men, e
put refLsirg 10 hnd he 'echnie Allies. We
canno' eff ct our object be,er than by submit
ing he rea. OTIS assigned BY he Jury ''srf Tor
course, in answer 10 a letter addressed 10 II
by the pr ~, u,ing counsel. For his purpose
we have borrowed he paper from the hles Of
the Court, and >ubjnin 1t.
CHaxn JuHr Room. July 81. 1879
The Grand Jury III rrptv t. the letter addressed to
them -, the rIlsci fn he unitel States and
ference To the bin Of ndcmen sent INST Tobias
Watkins for foyer eciiu'i state, That they ne
yer found, srd nere. mt nGe'' 10 fnd an intatory
pre .ent ment a. prisoner fD' tn offence It Tor
rery: hai tn. Grand Jur, ha :, when III was,
early IN ,he tern presented to then consideration by
the United states Attorney IN person. and explained
by him. Decided, after his Withdrawal and on mature
deliberaon, that the nonsmisson AID shspension al
least, If not tn eraSure of items of accom-, presented
to his Office for settlement and allowance, WAS an act
coming within the legal competency OF the 4th AUDI
tor and vas an ordinary aud common occurrence, IN
the disc barge of his ficsl duty That, therefore, the
psrtls erase, and suspension, bv the late Fourth Au
dtor Watkins IF certain items the abstract OF AN &C
count current; transmitted him for tenent though
probably done effect the Conceament OF previous
fraudulent transaction, did rot OF tsf constitute 'he
crime of forgery the erasure coui ell ct N" wrong
To- he Government to the nlvdua, iiasi"uch AS II
woubl conclude neither party in the final settlement OF
The account nor enable the said Auditor to possess
himself unjusty or fraudulently, OF the funds OF Mr.
tIarri, other persons That the aicsauon OF
filrey Altering" the abstract OF account, ("hlch a
mong man. other circumstances set forth IN the indct-
in which the allegation was first introduced AS one
of the cham Of facts BY which was intended to esah
sh the chief charge snd object indictment name
w. the design deraui the Treasury, was suffered by
the Grand Jur to pass IN that form, and i"r ta Pur
nose although they would have refused 10 md thc al
ternp of,he abstract as subst antiye offence in dis
tnct believing as they do, that was no'
document IN the alteration of hch the offence ut frge
r, could be committed, that. having, however, aiint
ted the allegation of falsely aherg Is an Incidental
| and auXtfart point, IN tuS uftsau ~ ny
did not feel themselves authorized TO refuse To hnd The
same charge, the terms. in separate ami DIS
tine, bill, when, subsequently,, one was sent up to heh
by the counsel OF the United States; leaving to the
Cour to punish the offence il they should s'judSe IT
Ito be on, and the prisoner, trial, be convicted o II,
but the Grand jury for the above briefly rec
ed refused find indictment tor forgery, IN the
case of the alteration OF L. ID. Harrisss account (ho
as has bee fats " acdgsd, from an unwllhagness to
fin the tec,hieass Necessary to sustain their present
ment, but from conviction that igery had not been
commtted) as they did the similar transaction IN re-
both cases were persona, submitted to The Grand Ju
~ by the District Attorney. By order Vi the Grsna