The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-28

uient, because IL was u0L anticipated that 1ucu
point would be seriously made. The broad PROPOSE
ton taken by the defence that the act OF 1913
had no general application, but was to be confined
To that class OF persons named in the title OF the
act sailors. But IL did not follow that the statute
was TO be 30 limited. II frequently happened that
acts OF Congress referred to subjects not indicated In
the title. For instance, II under the head OF "blls
OF exchange and promissory notes. the Legislature
should provide that q man guilty OF murder should
be hung, 1t would certainly be no good TO say
that no man should be convicted OF murder unless
the offence grew out OF the making OF bills OF ex-
change or pr0misSOry notes. III he had known that
counsel for the defence would have taken that
position he could have referred to o number or
statutes containing provisions not german to the te
The provisions OF the act or 1918 mad all been re-
pealed except the thirteenth section and perhaps,
another. What meaning was to be attached to,
what inference drawn from thatY 1t left it just the
same precisely as IL Congress had passed an original
act containing the thirteenth section and no other.
All the provisions with reference TO the employment
OF seanen, to their character, to the persons VINO
might employ Them were repealed, clean gone, leav-
ing the thirteenth section standing which affixed
punishment to forging, altering or falsely making
naturalization papers, and which was applicable TO
all cases that might possibly arise. 1t seemed very
clear therefore, that the statnte OF 1873 especially
after the repeal OF the other sections, was one OF
general application, calculated and intended 70 en-
brace all cases Of the character Of the prosecution
In Brlgntey's digest OF the Laws OF the United
Stales,'' which was regarded az good authority,
the compiler had evidently taken that view OF the
casethat the thirteenth section was general IN us ap.
pllcati0n and was not confined TO seainen employed
on the public or private vessels or the United Stares
Could II be believed that Congress intended to pass
u
citizens and leaving all other classes to falsely MAKE
forge or counterfeit naturalization papers al their
The notion could not be entertained for one moment
by gentlemen over-zeaous in defence OF their client.
Had the defendant violated the statute OF 1882 the
evidence was That the persons who mad been on the
stand as witnesses had gone over to the deienGanrs
place or business, where naturalization cerbncaIes
were made dispensed and handed out and applied for
naturalization papers for various persons named all
OF which persons were fictitious. Inc certhlcates
were made out and furnished. We're they not false
WApA frfA Ilaun mi MN nnl
contained on their face u falsenood. There were no
sucn persons in existence as the persons named:
They were, therefore, in every sense OF the word
false certificates. But there was evidence, said
the counsel for the defence thai the signature OF the
County Clerk was not genuine, or that the seal was
not the genuine seal OF the court IL became the duty
oil the defence 10 show that the signatures and seals
were genuine. The inference TO be drawn from
the fact that the certincates were obtained
fsom u lager beer saloon was that the sig
natures and seals were spurious and false,
ana 1t remained for the accused to prove that they
were genuine and real, and not false. IL was true
That the act under which the prosecton was brought
was criminal, penal act, and That IL must be con-
srued strictly; but AT the same time IL WAS not TO
receive such construction AS would open the Hood
gates OF crime and permit individuals TO forge or
after naturalization certificates, without being ex
posed TO punishment. II was to nave reasonable
construction, TO make it reach those Cases to
which Congress had intended 1t to apply.
Counsel for the defence argued in support or the
motion, quoting the various legislation or Congress
on the SUBJECT OF naturalization to prove that the
certificates charged rs being false ana spurious were
not provided Tor in such esslatlon; that they were
extra Official and that, even II they were forged no
prosecution for such forgery would lie. any more
than prosecution for perjury would lie in the case
or q self-JmpOsed oath.
Mr. Fullerton remarked that this was an entirely
Counsel for defence remarked that the prosecution
had had acnance to argue Its case.
Mr.. Fullerton repeated that no such point had
been raised when the motion To discuss was made,
and counsel Tor The prosecution Claimed the right TO
reply.
Counsel for defence remarked that the prosecution
had attempted TO dwarf down the defence to ltlpu-
tan Dimensions. and that the prosecution should, in
ats turn be dwarfed down.
The Commissioner SAID he would hear what coun-
Gel might have to say.
Counsel Tor defence continued his argument in en-
forcement OF the point indicated. He should like to
hear counsel for the prosecution on the point
whether il certificates tOrgcI which, II genuine,
would have no Legal vaid ~ sat consumes ~ ior
He understood that the certificate must be such as II
genuine original act, would have some legal valid
ty IL was an elementary principle OF forgery that
where instrument was void on its face there
could be no forgery predicated on it. Here was an
attempt to predicate forgery on a certificate which
was recognized and known to no law. The charge
therefore, ia lin,ine perfectly absurd and pre-
posterous. lie contended that tne court must be
the fraud was accomplished. The defence was enti-
tied to know that Was 1t done by false principals
and false witnesses, was the judicial majesty OF
the great State OF New York to be arraignedY That
was the question the defence wanted to have an
swered. Was IL to be understood that Rosenberg
with stufrcd carcases had imposed on the Supreme
Court OF the State OF New York, or that ma
leStlC Tribunal 0au uTdSKltu It's garments III
the mud of.politics for mere partisan purposes
Let the prosecution say what ground 1t took. II 1t
said that the Supreme C0urI committed the crime
then It acquitted Mr.. Rosenberg, and II IL said that
he committed the crime then let II be proved upon
him. Was IL charged that State tribunal, without
principals wltllout witnesses Tor the mere asking,
had become the mill In which tnat Ubiquitous -four
was ground out9 He asked the prosecution to deal
with the subject in cand0r. Was II at Rosenberg or
at the Judge who held the Supreme Court that the
prosecution was aimeds He asked his Honor to
push the prosecution aside with the same nausea
ana responsiveness with which he would reject the
Odor OF a rotten egg unless II came before hun
prosecution should do. Had u ever been heard OF
before that citizen who had In his possession reg
uIary certified Judgment OF real court OF justice
had TO prove In his defence, that the court had not
pronounced the judgment contrary to law = He had
heard OF rule like that being applied to the thief
who was found in possession or stolen property.
Here was man found with five certificates which
the prosecution had not dared TO asperse because II
knew they were genuine; and yet the defence was
expected to go on and show that the court which
had rendered those Judgments had proceeded &C
understood that the judgments OF courts OF general
judicature proved themselves. He would Illustrate
his argument by reference 20 judgments Ia divorce
cured by getting perJured wretch TO swear that
he had served nitiatOry process on the wife. The
went by default. Had It ever been heard that the
man who produced the judgment was charged with
forging itS He would suggest TO the prosecution the
committed Ia obtaining such false judgment OF
diyorce9 Subornalon Of perjury. But had II ever
said that because SUCH luiniclit Deeu OD-
tanned through srbornation OF perjury and perjury
the husband was. therefore, To be treated a. nsng
the hand OF The court feonOusly to bring into being
what mad no legal or moral foundation to build itself
uponY So here, Ii Rosenberg Suborned principals
and false witnesses why was II not provedY That
was liza only crime. n the court ordered those
judgments arbitrarily he had committed no crime
In tue NATTER and II there was any accountability 1t
was ON the court. The crime was one winch the
court alone could commit After further anpiifying
and arguing these several points counsel concluded
nv Submitting that the motion 10 dismiss the prose-
cntjon was well founded and that the reasons for
SUSTAINING the notion were perfectly unanswerable
Mr. Brady rose and replied-lie said counsel ON the
other side Had made an unusual complaint that the
prosecution had occupied but very brief time In
putting their case. They would not complain that
counsel had on his side occupied so much time as
he had certainly exhibited all his usual ability and
research He must be permitted 10 say that coun-
sci however even his love OF the study OF criminal
law, had been led away from the simple question
which at this particular junction OF the case they
were called decide. In reference to what counsel
had termed the magnificent trlbunal-that II, the