The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-12-24

Thas .ns eye OF Congress Is required ny law
only drawn it out the public money but
i was drawn out for the relief Of woodward
mere was then, no occasion for these remarkable
transfers OF these $40 900; shall now to show that
1t was loan, joint investment with Woodward for
speculative purposes The learned prosecutor read de.
clsraton OF before the House OF Representatives
that he had not made disposition of dollar Of the pub
lie fuads unlawiuy, but that he made deposits with in
dividuals the amplest securities. which he would
show the arrival OF his clerk, (r Kershaw But he
had not met his word-nor made good his declarations.
The learned prosecutor REQUIRED to the evidence OF Mr.
Leonard sustaining the character of Dr. Woodward as
safe depository MIR. rendaH argued that the Doctors
operations made for the benefit exchange
that was the practice of transferring Eastern funds
Mr. readvered TO the protested drafts and argued that
| accused was cognizant of their existence, when he
ordered this transfer of 900 to the credit OF DR. Wood
wari Altogether, the transfer in udicous, and
applied to Woodwaiss uses in conformation Of law
We show transaction marked with all the evidence of
ioan or an investmen-a private transaction with the
public money and yet we anticipate that the defence
will argue that this deposit If this ae So the law
OF Congress is nuty for what possible transaction
can that w have reference to- If not to
this class Upon the face of it, the act bears all
bezzlement, according to the law. The evidence
shows that the Secretary of the Treasury did demand of
nand Read e over the po IN ai
npon accused Coleman's, the 9th OF February, 45
The prosecution anticipated the defence would be that
the Clerks accounts had not been audited and there
fore, could not be honored at the treasury This might
be presented had the accused acted he
should have done TO get his accounts audited by the
| House Committee No excuses of accused that he did
not get notices to attend the Committee would avail
him. 1t his duty to attend without notice. Had he
been innocent he would have given them rest. day
nor night, in the settlement OF these difficulties Some
personal difference is alleged as the reason of non.
! presentation of accused before the Commttee-the
same OF MIR. kershaw; and Willard goes But he
hsre himself on the 3st January and could have been
there oitener, and ought have been Mr. Fendal re.
erred 10 the purchases OF Clerk made in dsobedience of
law, in not previously advertising the same. Besides
that, the prices paid were too high Read the law
curing advertising for public stationery Sc, with
view to the lowest prcel The law is dated August,
flvoritism dictated by sound policy for the
security of the public interest and TO prevent extra
VACANT acts OF fsvorsm on the part of public officers
THIS officer purchases 10 defiance of and the
/ mittee could not pass his accounts. But what
they suggested that he should ask of the House allow
for these purchases, the articles having the use
Of the House But he did not even do this in mitigation
OF the charges against him. Suppose, however, these
IA or $4,000. are all correct-making his vouchers
amount sls5ooO and add the ss oo0 in the Patriotic
Bank, and the $1,000 IN the Bank of Amercayou still
have deficit against him of SIS, 000 which in part may
be accounted for N this Indictment The Ss5 600 the
| extent OF what could be done in his favor allowing
the illegal purchases suspended by the committee
With all these views of these transactions, the prose
cutor justified the prompt and decisive action Of the
House OF Representatives and of the Committee of Ac.
counts in view OF the preservation of the public funds,
he Of ss the
congratulated him on the able counsel he had secured
lie knew that all that could be done to establish his
innocence would be done From the great preparations
they had been making however the learned prosecutor
presumed the necessity that would perhaps arise of
i
The jury retired at the close ohe prosecutors argu
ment for bite of bread and glass Of water and such
| the vestbuls
Mr. STANTON rose to reply The large assemblage of
people curious and silent anticipating powerful
argument for the prisoner After addressing the
and the jury he proceeded Ii said of one of the
mos distinguished statesmen in the councils of the
ton that on one occasion being asked what institution
OF all others he would preserve the dearest and the
81 s he b sps by Jury r. So great and
institution that they secured it by q specific clause
in the national constitution and further so invaluable
was this privilege regarded to the security of individual
liberty, that in the amendments to the constitution
particular clause in behalf OF trial by Jury was in
serted In no case OF criminal prosecution was the
value Of this institution clearly exhibited than in
this cause before this Court and this jury. Mr. read
resolution of the House requiring the President Ia
prosecute the accused and the Presidents letter or
dering the prosecution accordingly. The learned
counsellor denounced these proceedings as hasty, "a
dice against the accused lie arraigned day and
discharged and ordered over to punishment next
and was only permitted TO speak by privilege his
accusers Nh Stanton defined the process Of trials be.
iorea jury-the form of prosecution required by law
and before jury IN that before the last the prisoner
10 be adudged innocent until his guilt shall have been
cdang this favorable distinction in behalf Of the ac
cused, the eloquent counsellor proceeded exsm
nation Of theindictment before the court. Tread the
indctmcnl the first count Charging the c,nye,.
zion OF $4,000 OF the public moneys to the the
accused defined the specific nature of the offence
the counts in the indictment could not be true-the first
charging the accused with converting this money to his
own use the second with investing il in merchandise
in conjunction with Dr. Woodward the third in loan
ing the money to DR. Woodward This course was pro.
per for the prosecutor it necessary cover the
Whole ground Of the proof. But the counsel for the
the Government had not been able to make out of
which OF these charges the accused was guilty Had
he specified loan, il would have been rebutted-ha
he chosen the charge of investment could have
rebutedhad he chosen the conversion of the money to
the OF the accused, il could have been overturned
But he has chosen neither the first the second nor the
third Indictment H. has left the discovery Of ,he
q tle iury po,l1h hail
vince, however, OF the counsel for the defend.
ant TO prove him innocent in tee aggregate the
detail Mr. Stanton then proceeded TO show that the orr
gna SubTreasury Act in ITS penal provisions applied to
officers OF the mint to collectors and receivers OF the
public funds and not to the clerk othe House. he be-
ing included in the list Of persons in the act And
the learned gentleman argued that the act of al repeal
Attorney Tor the United staes) did not enlarge the caa
logue Of officers OF the Sub Treasury act. But the
sw mped dsiea inst the very language e
responsible to the penalty OF the law Of Mr. Stan.
ton continued an ingenious argument to show that
the Clerk of the House, by the reasonable construc
lion from the original sub.Treasury act of 1870 ii
the jury should arrive at this conclusion there
would be an end of the case. But if they did not
come to sucn conclusion there another poin. in
the law to be examined The act of 1871 eads that
IL any oflcer charged with the safe keeping" Sc Mr.
s. construed this charged" to by law and asked
where was the law charging the safe keeping trans.
fer sc )" to the cerk of the House The oct Of isa3
again requires the Secretary OF the Senate the clerk
expenditures &C. Where is the evidence he re- thai the
accused was ~ law an officer charged with the safe
keeping transfer" &cl There was no law for Il The
practice OF the House clerk in issuing acquisitions for
money, had grown up from sufe rsnce-by usage /;
and not BY law If the jury believed thus there is no
need OF further trouble But the jury may think
entity and 1t becomes necessary continue the exam
nation OF the argument OF the prosecution Assuming
then, that the clerk Of the House officer under the
law what are the acts OF crminality Of which the ac
cused is indicted Ticking them their order the frs,
charge is, that Caleb J. MNuy had this money nyes.
ed in m rchandize There not Q title Of proc
that Caleb j. pNulty had invested the money in
merchandise. The second charge he could as easily
ser aside. The third, that he hal loaned the money
he would show TO be equally ialIacious After reca.
ptuatng the transaction Of the traner of the $4,000
he asked how these transfers loan Because il
could not be proved. that the law which applies pen
atty upon the public officer loanng the money! with
or without interest" cannot Of course, apply Mr.
stanton read from Sir William Jones, definition of
loan lie referred to the remark Of the prosecutor In