The national Republican., 1867-07-23
LOCAL DEPARTMENT..

Ly%hL DLrhhlm III EN- l. 1
Hon. JAMES M. TonxsY.--The decision
. b. the case Of Hon. James M. Tonsny. charged
With instigating the larceny Of certain papers
from Edwin B. Roberts. was rendered yesterday
o. 10 o. m. tal....la.l b.. .H. .T .L-., Is+ ~.
The decision was given By Justice Miller In
writing and was clear and able exposition Of the
INV and the facts. ~ -.
Senator Patterson, Col. Bingham, Col. Meal.
lister, and other prominent ssntlsmsn were pres
sit--interested In the proceedings. ia0.g s'li
Judge safold, on the part Of the prosecution,
with Mr.. Roberts, the prosecutor, was presenti
and Mr.. Tomsny, with Judge Lesch and Mr..
Cor, his counsel, was also In the room, TO listen
10 the decision. .s....s. s-
Justice Miller said that as this was ths day
set apart for decision TO be rendered In the case
Of the United States vs. Tomsny, he was now
prepared TO render IT, He thought u best, a. II
was one Of unusual Importance, and 90, ~ he
wsuld not bs misundsrstood, TO give the decision
In writing and which ho would now read:
The United States vs. James M. Tomsny.
This case comes up before me on an afidavit
made on the 11th day Of July, 1867, BY Edwin
b. Roberts, . resident Of the county Of Cohsma,
Mississippi. In said sfidsvit. II Is alleged that
on or about LIST day Of June, 1865, James M.
Tomeny, citizen Of Shelby county. In the State
Of Tennessee, did fsloniously and maliciously In
cite, move, counsel, hire, and procure aid. abst,
\
\ Of Tennessee, on the 25th day Of juno. 1855. to
broak and enter the room Of said Roberts, at
Willards' Hotel, In the city Of Washington and
District Of Columbia, and to steal, take, and
carry away therefrom certain tin box contain
iueNiivers papers consisting Of afidayit Of sun.
dry persons and vouchers from stores and sup
plies furnished to the army, alleged TO be Of the
value Of about fifteen hundred dollars, the prop
H erty Of the said Roberts.
DO not propose To review, In detail, tho tot-
Unony In this case, shall simply state, with
the greatest possible brevity, my understanding
| Of its purport.
Roberts, the prosecuting witness, tsstinss to
| the fact that the robbery was committed at the
| time and place stated in said affidavit. Beyond
this he knows but little Of the case, except as
H derived from others.
The purpose Of the testimony Of Carpenter,
the other witness for the prosecution, Is that, at
the city Of Mobile, in the State Of Alabama, in
| Rockwell, induced him, by promising consider
| alton, to make an effort to steal certain Of the
| papers belonging TO said Roberts, contained in
| the said boz, then at the Battle House In said
city, where Roberts was stopping; that he failed
In the accomplishment Of his said purpose there;
that Roberts subsequently, left for Washington.
and that witness came. on to this city with one
Du Bois and others. and here committed the
crime.
IIe also testifes that he received sundry sums
Of money from Du Bois, Tomeny and one Tom
linson, and that he handed the stolen papers to
Tomeny. He further testihes that he was in.
duced to come on here as q witness on the assur,
make Tomeny guilty, and he would thereby escape
Edgar NJ. Tomlinson, witness for the defence,
who stands unimpeached, testihes that he Is vel
acquainted with the character Of Carpenter FOL
truth and verscityi that II Is very bad, and that
hs would not believe Rim on oath. And ever
Roberts, the prosecutor himself, on cross. exami
nation, testi6es that the general character oi
Carpenter for truth and veraoity Is bad, and thai
hs can be induced TO swear falsely. Tomlinson,
TOO, contradicts distinctly and specifically, most
' II not all, Of the material statements Of Carpen
ter This testimony, In connection with tho ad
mission Of Carpenter that hs was induced to turr
Estates evidence" on the assurance that by SC
doing he would secure for himself an immunity
from punishment, together with the fact that hii
statements are uncorroborated, leads me to dis
credit his testimony.
The accused, too, has established, In this iu
vsstigation the most unexoeptionabe character
for honesty, probity, and integrity. both as .
pnblio man and q private citizen, BY tho testi
mony Of honorable gentlemen occupying tn,
highest place in the councils Of the nation, and
BY others whose veracity Is beyond question,
some Of whom have known him from early In
fancy.
In Wow, therefore, Of the facts Of this case, al
disclosed by the testimony, am clearly Of ths
opinion that there Is no reasonable ground fol
belief that the accused s guilty Of the crime with
which h, Is charged.
The ar sstion Of my jurisdiotio In this case has
bssn siaborately discussed by the learned gentle
1 men representing both the prosecution and thu
defence. 1t might therefore be expected that
would say something on that question.
The crime with which the prisoner is charged
n 10 alleged to have been committed by him In the
etate Of Alabama, and he Is charged as On acces
sorry before the fact.
Under these circumstances, the courts Of th,
District Of Columbia have not In my judgment
any jurisdiction to try the aoousedi and tha
being the case, have no Jurisdiction, as an ex
smining court, to commit or hold him to bai
for trial In this District. Tho elementary books
~ well as the adjudged cases, would seem to b,
N clearly decisive on this question.
The case Of The People vs.. Adams, % Dinio
100; / Comstock, 1857 cited by the learned
counsel for the prosecution, Is not, In my opin
ion, q case in point to support the prosecution
In that case, Adams, who was a citizen Of the
State Of Ohio, was indicted In the city Of New
York for obtaining a large sum Of money from I
arm In that city, BY means Of fictitious receipts
signed by q forwarder In Ohio, falsely acknowl
sdgug the delivery to him Of quantity Of pork
and lard for the use Of, and subject 70 the Ordsl
Of said frm.
These receipts, drawn and signed in Ohio
were presented in New York by agents, who had
no knowledge Of the fraud employed by the do
fepdant in Ohio. The decision in the case turned
npon the point that Adams, having employed
innoeent agents to consummate the crime In New
York, was guilty as prineipal-there being nc
pther gnihy person to whose crime his acts could
be aeeessoriaL And being guilty as principal
hs was liable to prosecution In the place phsr,
hs crime pas contaminated, though not present
por even within the general jurisdiction Of th'
State.
That case 10 not like the one before me. Car
bSnter, who oonsummated the crime In this case
was not an innoesnt agent, If an agent, at all
ii HAis, therefore, the principal.
The prisoner Is discharged
At the conclusion Of tho reading and tho dis
charge Of Mr.. Tomeny, that gentleman wa
warmly congratulated by his friends, and al
left the room.
The case has been one Of more than usual I'm
portance, involving as II did the character Of I
gentleman whose integrity has always been un
Questioned and whom we are proud to say ha
in this decision-one given according to facts
pass cd through the ordeal soatheless
Without any reference to the law Of the case
h will be seen by the decision that the justic,
buds the testimony wholly insufficient to war
ii l.. hl,, L. hoIdin0 tha anausad