Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-10-27
LOCAL NEWS.
The United States agt. Johnson, Sutton,
and 6pnnaSe.


ment and defense in the case of the United
| States us. johnson, Sutton and Hennage, and
now, in completion of the case, present an out
line OF the points made by the counsel for de-
tense and by Judge Advocate Foster in their
arguments in conclusion.
THE ARGUMENT FOR DEFENSE.
Mr.. Riddle reao the defense:-rhe accused
Were charged with having sold goods TO Worse
ley and others to br clandestnely carried into
the rebtl lines. Had sold goods to rebels
through Worseiey, blockade runner.
These charges were proven by the unsus-
tanned evidence Of WorseIey alone.
The government had Included in the same
charge all the employ ees, even to the colored
mouth OF every BODY whose testimony would
exculpae them II those parties could testify
against the accused, they would have been
called Tor the govern rment. Ii guilty, would
have been put on trial with them. But as they
were not, and their testimony would acuuit
the defendants. they were accused with them.
No man could be convicted on less than the
evidence of one unlnpeached and uncontra.
dicted witness. Worseiey's was less than tnar
1t was utterly improbabl.. No man had ever
| acted as did these, il Worseley tells any Lruth
The theory OF the case as made in the charg
was, that w. was an actual di>lOyai deaier-a
real blockade runner, and all through his eyi.
dence III chief, and part OF his cross examina-
tiop, he had so sworn When the decision OF
the Court com mpelled him to tell the truth, he
said he was aspp-a Goyernm agent, actlng
by authority. Nobody could believe him after
Lieut.. Hunt He WAS contradicted by Harris.
He was contradlcted by FouIk. He coutra-
dicted himself Foulk saw him at Johnson Il
Suttons and knows he pretended to be loyai,
and dealing within the Union lines.
Worseley SAID 1t Stone was with him at J.
Il SIS; why was not Stone called He said his
wife was with him there, often; why does not
the Government sustain him by her!
In this state of the proof the good character
OF the accused must prevail, and settle the is
sue tor them. Beriet on Courts Martial, 285.
DE Hart, 3I5.I
The evidence for the Government showed
that no crime could have been committed. II
made no difference what the defendants
thought, or supposed, or intended In the spe-
citications it is averred that Worsley was a
ciandestlne contrabaud dealer. Again, that he
was blockade runner, and hence to deal with,
or through him, was criminal. But the proof
is that he was in the employment Of the dow
erment in all he did. He sWears II be was
authorized to buy these goods of these defend
ants, they were necessarily authorized to sell
them to him. 1t they are criminal, he must be,
and as he cannot be, they are not The cues
tion is not, did they suppose they were COM
mittlng crime, but was there a crime commit
ted.-Harris' case, n Eng. Com. Law PSI Rex
VS.. James, do. AZ p. $50. Loves case, Moo.
and r. 30.
Finally, conviction of the accused would
be contrary to good morals and public policy.
They were innocent men. engaged in an honest
pursuit, unsuspected of crime. They were
approached by an emissary Of the Govern
ment who, to swer some want Of it, seduced
them as he says, into the commission of this
CLINE. IL was QOn6 WHOLLY LnrOug0 the Gov
erpment, and for the Government. In morals,
If there is guilt, 1t is the guiltier party. Gov.
ernments use extraordinary means to detect
crimes already committed They should never
conspire against their own citizens and induce
them to commit offenses against themselves or
If they do, decency must avoid the scandal OF
attempting to punish for the acts done.
Brown was trieo and convicted for inducing
soldier to desert, in the court OF the northern
district OF Ohio. Justice Swayne, Of the Sd
preme Court, ordered new trial, mainly on
no n ha
shall induced the defendant to commit the
ofense. He was enlarged on his own recogni-
Zance, and never brought to trial again.
The case OF the claimants OF goods VS.. the
United States, in the circuit court at Baltimore,
before Chief Justice Taney. 1t appeared that
Marshal McPhail had induced the claimants
10 purchase the goods and put them on board a
vessel and start, as they supposed, for the
rebel country, when he oyerhauIed them in
tug. and captured them. The Chief Justice
said the case was most extraordinary. That he
knew of no similar case in the United States
or England. That no court could condemn the
goods without sustaining the acts of McPhail,
which would be contrary to public policy.
That, upon that part Of the libel which alleged
that the goods were on the way to the enemy's
country, 1t made no difference what the claim
ants thought or intended. the goods were ac-
tually in the custody of Marshal McPhail.
The Chief Justice refused to condemn the
goods, and ordered them, or their value. to be-
restored to the claimants. He decided that
there was not even probable cause for
seizure, and ordered McPhall, as informer, to
pay the costs.
Mr Riddle remarked in the course of the ar.
gument that he was happy to be informed that
the Attorney General concurred with him in
his view of the law, that under the proof, no
offence had been committed.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
The Judge Advocate then stated substan-
tially:-That the present case was one of the ut
most Importance to the Government and all
loyal citizens. That the Commission were to
decide whether merchants, the leading firms
OF Baltimore and Washington, were to clothe
and feed the Virginia guerrillas, as they had
Tor the past four years. II it be no crime to
trade with the enemy, to furnish them their
rebel uniforms; and to aid and encourage them
in the very Capital Of the Union, then indeed
had the Government proved a failure, and we
our impotency. But if we were what we
claimed TO be, il was proper that the tallest
heads should be brought down. the most prom
inent merchants made examples Of
In his opinion the evidence of the witness
Worseley was abundant to prove the case. He
had learned that the defendants traded with
blockade.runners; that they were rebel SYM
pathisers; hence he boldly introduced himself
to the firm, showed his credentials-a pass
from the guerrilla Mosby-and they sell him
large quantities Of rebel cloths. They know
his Intentions, and willingly aid him-con-
gratulate him on his return from each trip,
ana finally advise him to hurry back wnen
Mosby has captured a paymaster, in order
that they may receive the fruits of the guer-
rillas robberies.
The Judge Advocate showed the outside
evidence Ct the knowledge of johnson & SUIT
ton OF Worseley's character as a blockade run
ner from the following:
lst. The nature of the goods-Confederate
gray-aIways the exact amount for a suit, cav
airy trimmings, army quantities., the soft army
hats. certainly these were not supposed to be
sold to farmers within our lines.
I'd. The orders themselves in the possession
of the defendants, were signed by Mosby's Of
fcers, Aajutant Blackwell, Capt Mountioy,
It. Lavender, 1t. Buckner, and Mrs. Mosby
herself, all SO we'll known to those living in
Wash ington or its neighborhood.
Sd. The mode of packing the separate suits
in bundles directed to the different members
OF Mosby's band, in the defendants hand
writing.
4th. The double bills made by Johnson &
Sutton must have excited their suspicion, for
who could credit that parties living within
sight of Washington would not know the price
of goods better than to allow him to charge
double price.
5th. The time elapsing between each visit of
WorseIey was just sufficient to go 10 the Blue
RIDGE and back