The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-22
TINE SANFORD eonovEa PERJURY CASE.
UNITED STATES camnM COUNT Fua TINE pErncT m
COLUMBIA

Opinlon Of Associate Justice VlsAeP.
WASHINGTON, Deo 70, leea
This 10 IN Indictment for perjury, mot framed q
common law but framed under an oct Of Congresa Tns
origin Of the case 10 briefly ths:-shortly after the
trial Of Nra surrat and others who acoomplcet
with Booth In the assassination Of the late President
Lincoln certain adavits tending 70 crminate the pre-
tended President Of the Confederate States and others In
that infamous deed taken 1t the instance OF the
Judge Advocate General Of the United States
by and before . notary public Iof this district.
Among them were the afddavits Of one Joseph
Hoar and Of one Joseph Swivel. After these afDda.
Wits had been thus taken resolution was passed BY the
House Of Representatives instructing the Committee
the Judiciary OF that body, which was then duly in
session, to inquire whether there was then probable
cause to believe that the murder Of tho late President
Lincoln was melted or procured concerted by Jener
SON Davis others mentioned in the resolution and to
report TO the House the result Of that investigation and
whether any, and II any, what legislation was me-
cessary in the premises IN order to graythe demands
OF Justice. In obedience to that resolution, the
COMMITTEES being empowered to send for persons
and papers procured the adavits OF Hoar and Snise
and also the attendance OF the atlantis and OF the prs
oner the witnesses to be used In the investga
ton wherewith the committee was charged by the
House 1t is alleged that the course OF the examina
ton of these witnesses Hoar and Swivel that the
statements made in these afdavs, sworn 70 by them,
false to and were gotten up and fabricated by
the prisoner at the bari and that the prisoner on the
thus fabricated by him, or that they were false,
and sworc that he had no reason TO- doubt
the arnthulness Of the statements which they
contained II is also further alleged that in this
before the committee the prisoner swore TO
fasehoods, more in making this denial and con-
tradcon OF Hoar and the expression Of his conviction
that the contained in the afdavts were true,
this account that he Is now indicted for per-
jury
In the argument OF this demurrer cases have been
cited law to show that IN indictment for per-
jury under the present circumstances VIII not ne ana
to be all ogeher insufficient 10 law In reference TO the
subject of perjury at common law as In regard to many
other matters there have been conflicting decisions Some
courts have declared that to support the charge Of
perjury, the false oath must have boon taken before
Of may % amy
In course OF justice each claiming TO have derived the
d0lniton of the crime from Hawkins Pleas OF the
Crown-the class averrng that he uses the words
'any proceeding in court Of JUSTICE" and the other
that the words originally used were ANY proceeding in
course Of jusiccn Among those who contend FOR the
latter definition by Hawkins, there Ii again
dr ersity Of opinion, for whilst some judges
have restricted the perjury 70 cases occurring
in civil proceedings affecting the civil rights OF
the party testified against others have argued that he
who has testified falsely before ecclesasca tribunal
il ndicabe for perjury the oath be administered by
civil magistrate TO the witness thus testyfng before
the spiri,uallcourt
However interesting an inquiry Of this character may
be- have need in this case, to be troubled with
the conflict Of authorities what constitutes perjury
at common law. It was no doubt with view Of set
Ting all difficulty the subject as to what constituted
this crime that Congress- by actapuroved as far back
April 90 1870 First Statutes at Large section 16 de-
cared that ~ any person shall wilfuly and corrupy
in any suit controversy, matter or cause depending in
any Of the Of the United states or In any deposit
ton taken pursuant TO the laws OF the United States
every person 90 offending and being thereof convicted
shall be imprisoned, &cn And again, BY act Of Con-
gress approved March 1925 fourth Statutes at Large
49, section 3 enacted 'that II any person IN any
case matter hearing or other proceeding when oath
or affirmation shall be required to be taken or admins
tered under or by law or laws OF the United States
shall upon the taking Of such oath or affirmation know
,ngly and wifuy swear affirm falsely every person
50 offending shall be deemed guilty Of perjury, 10
aaae. tns ,ass ac dnas Inc prsssns IN
Of IT, must ascertain, not whistler the ofrncechaTged
In 1t would have been indctabe a. perjury at common
prisoner with the crime Of perjury defined and de-
scrbed in the last recited statute OF 1896 and does
conclude III o% IF the s as
II II do not thus conclude, IL will DO bad on de-
murrer It is proper that should here observe
should DO more than act FORTH rs the substance Of tho
offence charged upon tho defendant; second By what
court or before whom the oath taken third that
y Sa
mens BIO made TO fasify the matters wherein the per-
Jury is assigned not to set forth ,hs, The re-
have stated the authority Of the body before which
ibe perjury waScommted Is apparent from reading
NE Let Us examine a sSsU The I II q. three counts
contained in this Indictment and see whether in all
respects does or does not come up 70 the full
Of these requirements
l. Does the Indictment show substantially any mat
ter q other ps0rssss SSsr en- oath va,
laws Of the United States whether Of positive
usagei ,.,v !, .,.s 80. m.,,or
hearing other proceeding the prisoner At the bar took
oath Or ns as e e n ss
o sses e ls .
Babcock. Mclean, u.s.
fs: :s1''0n ne knowingly -na u' ''' -. ''e1
Of perjury defined and declared by the act Of March
1895 section M and II these set forth properly in the
Indictment IL sets forth the substance OF the offence
charged upon tho prisoner as required under the act OF
April 80 $780, section 10: and next TO inquire
whether tho indictment further sets forth clearly
and with certainty 70 certain intent n general before
persons before whom IL was taken had competent nu-
thorty TO administer IL and does contain proper aver
ment TO falsifv the matters wherein perures as
sgnedY and lastly does IL conclude against the form Of
the statute required by the ruling OF the court In the
Upon inspection Of the Indictment ind that each Of
the three counts docs thus properly conclude and we
may therefore ut dismiss this branch OF our m
quy. The first count sets forth that on the ninth day
OF April 1885, the House OF Representatives OF the
United States OF America being then duly In session. by
resolution Instructed Us Committee on inc judiciary 70
the murder Of the late President Lincoln was melted
concerted, procured by and between Jefferson Davis
and others. IL goes on 70 name the chairman and
each OF the members OF that committee states that
they continued the and were 10 session, during
all the days and times named In the Indictment, and
with great particularly and certainty sets forth that II
important and material TO the matter TO be inquired
Of by and before that committee TO know whether the
contents Of certain dispositions adavits then in EVIL
dence before the committee were true or false and that
with view Of asceraning their truth or falsity an oath
administered 70 OF the parties who had
made those sdavs; that those parties declared upon
oath that all the statements contained In those adavs
were altogether false aud that they were prepared
and fabricated by Sanford Conovcr, tho prisoner
at the bar. l have no doubt therefore, that ttns
GENTLY forth the substance OF the offence charged
upon the defendant and IL also sufficiently sets forth
the before whom the false oath. alleged to have
been made by the prisoner at tho bar was taken and
does properly that those persons had az
the time competent authority TO administer that OATH
II also that In the which the commit
were instructed 90 make, and were making II be-
came q material matter question important 10 be
determined by the committee, whether those deposi.