The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1865-06-08
The Mysteries Of Trial by jury.

! On the 18th Of July, ls62, Congress
passed an act expressly declaring that all
persons engaged in furnishing supplies
for the army or navy should be deemed
part of the land or naval forces, and
should be subject to trial by court mar
tial, or military commission. Almost
simultaneously an act was passed pre-
scribing additional penalties upon civil
officers and agents of the Governm emf
found guilty of like frauds, upon trial
in the Circuit Court of the United States.
1t is well known that sundry swindling
contractors, both naval and military.
have been brought to grief by courts
martial, and compelled to disgorge their
lgotten gains. We have never heard
of any civil officer OF the Government
being convicted in Circuit Court of the
United States, no matter how strong the
testimony against him.
Mr. Isaac Henderson, Navy Agent at
New York, was recently put on trial for
alleged dishonest practices in the admin
istration Of his Office. The New York
World, which is 4 great stickler for trial
by jury, thus recites the points estab-
lished in the trial, before the jury in
Henderson's case which brought in YER
diet of acquittal:
Divested of superfuities and techni.
calitles, the nature of Mr.. Henderson's
improper and corrupt transactions with
Ioa a,,I xx-if =
his capacity of navy agent. is simply
this: He bought goods of merchants
and received from the government, to
pay for the goods, a certain amount of
money OF this amount the seller re
ceived only ninety per cent, or something
less than the whole, and Mr. Henderson
pocketed ten per cent. or the remaider
For example, August 81, 1868, Hen.
derson bought n quantity of oil from Sto-
YER. For this oil the government paid
80. .237 so OF this amount only 500
Oh ever reached Slower Henderson
pocketed the balance S2,223 so
Many other transactions precisely like
this, not only with Slower, but with
others selling goods to the government,
Henderson was guilty of How is his
guilt shown : There are three elements
in each case:
/. The amount paid by the govern
ment for the goods which it received.
,. The amount received by the seller
3. The amount retained by Hender-
son.
Tne books of the department at
W ashington, and the receipts of Hender-
son, show the first amount
The account books of the government
creditors and their bank accounts show
the second
Hendcrson's books and his private
bank account show the third
Now, in the particular transaction cited
above, the bank account of Henderson
shows that he deposited in the Metropo-
Titan Bank on that day S2.223 The
bank account of Slower shows that he
deposited in the Grocers Bank on that
same day S10,0l4, and in the Continen-
tai Bank Slo.o00-making to gether $780,
)l4. Add Henderson's deposits to S.o-
rer's deposits, and you have S22 237-
being (pennies Off the exact amount
paid BY the Government for goods fur
1ished by Stover to the Government,
through its navy agent, Henderson.
Not merely in this particular transac-
ion but in large number of others, and
lot merely in purchases from Stover but
n other purchases also, we find this same
coincidence between the
books of the department, the books Of
he sellers to the government, and the
private bank account of Henderson In
'ach and all of these cases, No 2, the
mount received by seller, is 90 per cent.
more or less of No. /, the amount paid
" the government; and No 8. the
mount deposited by Henderson, is 10
,er cent. more or less. of the same No
J, the amount paid by the government.
so. and No. always add up, odd
Iollars and odd cents, the precise amount
# No. l.
1t appears that Slower, who, by the
vay, has been the benefit of a court mar
ial and an acquaintance with the interior
# Fort Lafayette, was not willing to
wear that he received the amount of
money s20, Ola paid 70 him. He wouid
nly swear that either he or his book
,eeper received it. The bookkeeper
would only swear that either he or Sto-
er received. Thereupon the Judge
harged the jury that inasmuch as there
gas no direct personal evidence that any,
'ody had received the amount stated, /
which was 10 per cent less than If should
ave been, the jury must bring in YER
ict of not guilty, which they did. The
3 Grid considers this great triumph of
he jury system. for if the ends Of ius-
ice were defeated, they were defeated
We submit that the case,
1hile it does not prove, by any means,
hat the system of trial by jury is . fail |
re. may admonish some people that
heir pictures of the dangers of trial by |
ourt martial in time of war, and in the
midst Of depravity which war engenders,
nay possibly be somewhat exaggerated.
JEFF. FoREToLp up your ewes 7
nd behold them that come from the 4
-ar*b For fo er>~fr L