Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-12-08
LOCAL NEWS.


faHrer 10 the IndictmeHt.-This morning, San
ford Conover, alias Charles A. Durham. in
oicteu for perjury In connection with the con-
spiTacy trials, was brought into court (before
Judge Fishery The accused is quite a fine
looking man, apparently 25 or % years Old,
nearly II not quite six feet high, oval face,
blue eyes and dark hair.
MT Goodlng, for the prisoner, after briefly
recluhg history OF the case, proceeded 10 ar
que the demurrer TO the indictment filed yes
terday, taking the following grounds:
list The issue on which the evidence OF the
defendant was given we an immaterial issue.
The so-caled dispositions were not dispositions:
were not even afidavits-the Judge Advocate
'Tenefal (Hoit) having n authority TO admin
ister an oath. If false, they would not have
supported the charge OF perjury; and, there
fore, any thing said as to their truth fslsity
would not support the charge. The said de-
positions were never spoyrg to- and could not
be eridence. The defendant was sworn to tes-
tlfy as TO the truth or falsity OF the said depo-
sitons, and as 10 the truth or falsity OF Hoare's
statement, which was altogether shout the
said depositions; all OF which was immaterial
70 the inquiry authorized TO be made.
I'd. Admitting said dispositions were proper
ano legitimate evidence, the count does not sx-
pressly state that they were admitted as evi-
oenee IN ne inquiry pending, which omission
cannot De supplied by amendment.
Sd. The first and second assignments Of per-
lury are repugnant-the first alleging that the
defendant denied all Of Hoare's statement, and
The second THAI he denies il an the mcsn.
Attn. As 10 the second assignment the de.en.
dant says, in substance, that part OF Hoare's
statement ls true and part not true. The
Indictment should set out the part about which
the false statement is made for proper certaintv
both the first and second questions are too
general to support the charge Of perjury.
5th. What the defendant has reason to doubt
OF does doubt ls inmateriai as abstract ques-
ton. The fact that the answer forestalls fur
tner inquiry into facts does not make II perjury:
his doubts and reasons TO doubt are matters OF
personal opinion, not even professional opinion,
which alone is admissible IA evidence and on
whlch PERJURY can seldom If ever be sustained.
6th Tbe said deposition. or at least contents,
should be set out In the Indictment for proper
certainty. The defendant may desire and be
able to prove the truthfulness Of the said dep
oslioDs, and that he had "no reason TO deubt
and did not doubt their truthfulness
The history recited by Mr.. Gooding Is to the
effect that after the trial OF the consprators,
Judge Hol, took certain afidavi,s tending to
implicate Jefferson DAVIS in the conspiracy,
among others Joseph A. Hoare and Joseph A.
ShINeI, which are alleged TO have been pre-
pareo by the accused; that one of the standing
committees OF the House of Representatives
(the Judiciary was charged to inquire into
the alleged connection; thar Hoare and Sneyel
appeared before said committee and testified
tnat the arf1davits made by them were false,
ana Conover also appeared before the commit
tee and made oath thar the facts In those All.
davits were true
In addition TO the grounds taken above Mr.
seeding contended that the responsibility was
on Judge Holt, who had no authority to ad.
minister an oath, and the so-called dispositions
amounted 70 nothing but ordinary converse
lions. quoting from lst Hawkins Pleas of the
Grown, page 34l. lfHolt could administer an
Dam, Conover should be further indicted for
subornation 70 perjury. He read from Russell
on Crimes, Vol. Ii, paragraph SAL, 10 show that
an afidavittaken before magistrate 10 be used
before committee Of the House of Representa-
yves, although false, IL did not support the al
legation of perjury. Instead OF thro wing aside
the dispositions and asking Hoare what he
knew about the facts, they asked whether what
was et1orth III the alleged affidavit was true.
Mr.. Gooding proceeded 70 read from the in
dictmest noticing the anomaly OF a witness
being called TO testify 10 the truth OF his own
deposition. He took the ground that the ques-
tons iby the committee were too general The
committee asked Conover for an opinion
which they should have made up themselves
The ipdictme Mt is defective, th at although the
deposlsions were received in evidence. NJ is not
stated that they were received as 10 this in
quiry.
Mr.. Gooding also read the la W authorizing
the chairmen OF committees in Congress 10 adj
minister oaths. and raised the direction tnat
the law was defective, inasmueh as IL did not
declare raise swearing before a committee TO be
a crime.
The District Attorney followed on the other
side, and said that for the sake OF argument
admitting that Judge Holt did not have an
thority 10 administer an oath, yet he did con.
tend that the accused made before the cemmit
zee raise statements, wilfully and mali cious
he read from Brightly the case under which
the indictment is found, which provides thai
the Speaker OF the House and chairmen OF
committees may administer oaths, and any
person swearing falsely shall be deemed guilty
meaning OF the word perjury, and contended
mat this was a proceeding before q judicial
tribunal Was NOT the committee referred TO a
judicial committee!
Judge Fisher here said that he would like to
hear the question as to whether the House of
Representatives had authority to order the
saio quIrv; whether il was not an inv aston
OF the Judiciary Department by one House of
congress, and contrary to the disrribution of
powers by the Constitution. He remarked that
this question was included IN the point Of Mr.
Gooding as TO the statute, and was one on the
disposition OF which the whole case would
turn.
The District Attorney remarked that he
would like time to investigate the question;
and the al gument was continued.
THE CASE OF THE WASHINGTON AND ALEX.
ANDEIA RAILROAD.-The case Of the Ale KAN
dria and Washington Railroad Company VS.
the Washington, Alexandria and GeorRetowu
Railroad Company, Jos. b. Stewart, et al,
GauSf lay nd Wadn a.