Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-10
THE MOUNT HOPE CONSPIRACY CASE.


reported tor the Baltimore Daily COmmerCial.l
TowsoNTowS February 8. 1866.
CSrcuit Court for BaLtimore Coulty-Hon. D. C. II.
Emory, Judge; JoDn I. Ensor Esq, States Att0r-
ney.
State VS.. DR.. William II. Stokes and Mary Blen-
knsoR; indicted Tor conspiracy to cheat and deiraud
and Daniel Racliffe for the prosecution, and Messrs
Preston and VIM Schiey r fSmSey the defe%ce l.
Mr.. Radcliffe resumed his remarks this morning,
by saying that when he finished his speech yesterday,
he thought he had done; but after reflection he
thought he would add few remarks upon branch
Of the case that had not been touched and especially
as he knew the force of the argument that would be
made by the other side. The prosecution might fat,
if so, it would be modification to him personally:
it would be modification to fall under the blows oi
an INFERIOR but not under the heavy thrust OF such
counsel on the other side, who were professional
giants if the State had been searched over, ab!cr
counsel could net been found. The remarks of tho
counsel yesterday were directed to the effect of the
dence The effect oft was a matter to be considered
hereafter; the question the admiSsibility
Of the evidence proposed to be given.
Mr.. Ratclifle referred to the I'd volume of Russell
on crimes page Z99 and to the of the King
Murphy and the King vs.. ParSous eases quoted yes
terday by Mr. Preston; also to the case of the King
vs. Cope and contended that the last case cited de-
cided this very point. MIR. Ratclife said that yes
terday Mr.; Preston entertained the Court with It
speech OF three hours duration, which the most
CLASSICAL and eloquent speech he had heard for long
time but he had not touched the point in controversy
until the close Of his speech, when he said the
question was whether the Reports OF the Institution
should be admitted in evidence; it was very muc,
like ladys letter. where everything of importance
was contained in the postscript.
Mr.. Radcliffe said that the Indictment was a good
Indictment; it charged certain things, which, if true
constituted crime, and they were properly averred
and charged in the Indictment. A conspiracy must
be either cGmnlnauon OF persons TO do some
thing unlawful, or combination to do something
lawful in itself by unlawful means. Here it not
claimed that the object OF the Institution was un-
lawful, but that the means by which they attempted
to carry that into effect were unlawful.
Mr.. Ratcliffe here went into a long argument to
prove that the Reports of the Institution which they
offered, were proper and legal evidence. They wout
not be evidence against Mary BlenkinsOp unles thev
connected her with them, and showed her concar
in them, and this they proposed and expected
to do. If they did not connect her with them they
were no evidence against her.
In the shoemalgrs ease, it was held extremely diff
fcul to prove the pryity OF the parties accused with
part of the defendants. The Indictment charges
conspiracy on the part OF number OF Shoemakers to
Reports of the Society extending seven years back.
This evidence objected to, but sustained by Lord
Kenzon. Conspiracy may extend for hundred years
and yet be interW oven, link by link, within the
other, constituting one whole.
In the case Of Lord Stafford, evidence was first
given of a general conspiracy, before the guilt was
sought to be fixed upon the prisoner. Suppose we
trace this conspiracy up to the of the year.
they would not be guilty yet, why? because must
ed on one more facts, and these facts should be
directly established, that these facts may be estab
lished by proof We find Dr. Stokes circulating these
Reports for years-the same sisters there-the same
institution being referred to, forming link until
down TO inc Report lODD, Wlen te REPORT OF thdE
year adopts all the preceding ones and Incorporates
1T into its own body.
Mather, the doctrine of continuance is clearly set
out. If conSpiTatOTs enter their illegal doingS in
county they may be prosecuted there but if they go
into another county, and commit overt act they
NAV he prosecuted there the law uresuming their
agreement extended to that county, and the act Of
one of those conspirators includes the whole.
Now for the statute of imitatation. This would be
good I'VE could prove no overt act, but one overt
act is enough; want no more. The doctrine Of
limitation will not apply to this case anyhow. It is
a well known principle Of law that where plaintiff
has no opportunity to make his grievances known,
the statute OF Limitation will not apply we take the
ground that the plaintiffs IN this case hadsno tllnow
an opportunity to state their grievances and even
now the occasion is only the result of accident.
Ifyour Honor shall decide that there is no guilt
here shall rejoice for this community and for its
honor but if there is guilt let it be punished The
State wishes not to oppress any one If these peone
innocent il is in their power to here and defy
the world; Mr. Ratclites speech occupied the Court
about an hour, and was very able and logical
Mr.. Rogers then rose, and said he would occupy
the Court for only about twenty minutes He wished
to speak on one point to show quo ulo the pr1secu
ton offered to put the reports Of the institution in
evidence. They were evidence against Dr. Stokes
because they were his declarations, and they would
show what were his views to how hospital should
be conducted, and the prosecution would show the
hospital was not conducted in the way he said a
hospital should be conducted. hey would connect
Mary BlenkinsOp with them by showing she was az
Emmettsburg, and was one of those that controlled
and directed everything that went on at the lnsttu-
ton. They also evidence as part OF the res
ge the acts and declarations OF the parties dur
ing this long series of years Cheating and defraud
ing the public had always been held an oHence both
in this country and in England.
The indictment in this case was good per Sc wholly
apart from the overt act but the overt act was
charged Mr. Rogers said that the law ofthe gentle
men on the other side was generally wrong Mr.
Rogers contended that the counsel for the prosecu
ton were not bound by the overt acts stated and
charged in the indictments but could give in evidence
other overt acts not charged in the Indictment Mr
Rogers read parts of the Indictment, and conended
that it was good in every particular, and commented
the acts charged in the indictment. In cases Of
misdemesnors no dates were given that is to say no
precise dates except the act necessary to bring 1t
within the venue Of the court The acts Of atreat-