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

other side OF the same apartment and within the
same limits Rosenberg superintended the distrDu-
uon OF uanscripts nom that magnlhcenI trDuna'.
Counsel then rehearsed some OF the more mportant
points In the testimony OF the principal witness
simons, with reference TO Witness purchase OF
naturalization papers, Counsel said that he was
speaking OF the proofs they stood uncontradfcted
on the record. lie would ask was this dealing In
false, forged and fraudulent certificates Of citizen
ship an offence against the act OF Congress not
He did not mean 70 say that the views OF opposing
counsel ON this point were Incorrect; ne was only
one OF the advocates Of the government trying 70 De
right and the arguments OF opposing counsel might
be more forcbe and cogenr than his, and determine
the Court in its decision accordingly. The argument
OF their opponents was that because here was the
genuine seal OF the Supreme Court and eecause mere
e 1e 81 he ens, rans ~ e OF ese false
certificates OF citizenship Is not crime IL Is not
crlme they argue for the reason that II Is not for
BY the proper CLERK; not forgery, they
say, because there is no intent TO utter It,
Knew VI that ~ %as alse and the accused who must
be permitted by law 10 assume that position claims
d v Wos All ase H ae had listened 10 the
OF counsel with the greatest attention, but he had
heard very little about the word "false'' in the
statute, to which counsel for the prosecution al
tached very great importance Counsel were apt to
eaten hold or certain catchwords, such for exam
be construed strictly. II the word "stricty"
was TO- be he.t TO mean that yon con-
n meaning ana terms It Is lam adsardity Il
means you must not enlarge the statute beyond its
terms to reach . case for which II never was de-
signed, the rule Is no way different between the
civil and the criminal statutes. When you come TO
statutory provisions you inquire first, what was
the mischief that eXisted2n second, ..What il the
remedy that should be appliedfu ana third, "in
what form shall that remedy be prescribedr Our
laws have inherited from the English laws many
| have become Obsolete They had their origin
| In that period OF English history when me
| death, and 1t was then almost foregone
conclusion II once the sword OF justice was drawn
il must only be returned bathed i'll blood. An adj
vanced civilization and more humane administiil.
ton Of the laws have removed the causes which led
to tue enforcement Of technical rules, and there Was
now no reason or sound rule for retaining them.
In the light OF all rules which prevailed ~ the pres
| ent time Tor the construction OF the statutes he
would come TO the particular one that either does or
does not reach the accused. This was tile act for
| the regulation OF seamen on board Tie pub
TIC or private vessels Of the United States.
the old country knows that the voice for initiating
bill belonged 10 mere clerk, and that that duty
was seldom never performed by member Of
Parliament. The rule was that whenever there was
| doubt about the meaning of a statute in ITS own
ence might be had 10 The title 10 gain assistance in
its preparation; but to say that when statute Itself
soa ~a otsds ~ s to- LOOK
| at its title for its meaning and scope
is substituting the title for the act ITSELF
and substituting the hand of the clerk for the will OF
| the sovereign body. On this point he had said
enough, he thought, in answer to his opponents ar
gument about the title of the act under which this
prosecution was brought.
There seems less exception to the question OF facts
here proved. Mr.. Lawrence thought That only !, a
statute. We think otherwise, and which side IS
correct must depend on the examination OF the
case which way it is, If there be any offence
whatever in what we contend for as the legitimate
construction or the act under which the accused Is
brought before your Honor.
Counsel quoted the second section OF the act hat
from and after the time when This act shall take
erect it shall not be lawful to employ aforesaid, ~
&C. This the first time that the word 'natural
zed is employed in the statute and 1t 10 used IN its
broadcast to exclude every kind OF legitimate
naturalization. II did not comprehend any false or
forged naturalization. We produce here paper
that contains the name of a who never con-
fessedy exsted-a fictitious person; instead OF
being an O'Sbannnessy he might az well be
Peter Schemin, the man without shadow. thing
that Is capable OF being called true or false, counsel
argued true false ut the moment OF Its crear
lion. Then, he would ask, was this certificate Of
naturalization true false? Counsel on the other
side contend that Is true because il has the genu
inc Impress OF the seal OF the United States upon 1t
and also because has the genuine signature Of the
County Clerk upon It, What do counsel the other
side sayY DO they say Rosenberg has stolen the
paperY Where did he get It fromf How did he OBJ.
tain It, II u has The seal OF the supreme Court and
| the signature Of Charles A. Loew, County Clerk,
If not with. their consent and conniv.
this magnificent tribunal, the Supreme Court
| OF the State OF New York. Is your Honor TO hold
| that the Supreme Court has than seal Is
there any presumption that that seal Is not always
kept under the lynx eye OF the eternal vigilance
which that MAGNIFICENT tribunal should exercise to
| their influence American citizens by fictitious
nancss win counsel say tnal Rosenberg could law
fully and honestly obtain blank naturalization
papers signed by the legitimate Clerk OF the county,
bearing the actual seal Of the Supreme Court i'm
pressed upon them? Are there duplicates or this
seal which can be taken to the lager beer sa-
looms Of the city and used 10 distribute 5000
or 100000 OF certificates OF naturalization
Are the destines OF the American people
to Ike determined or controlled or placed AT the
mercy Of scoundres permitted to tratlic with the
highest and most sacred right Of American citizens
In conclusion, counsel did not think 1t out OF place
to state in view OF the great importance OF the legal
question itself that was here involved. and In cOnsid
Grafton OF other matters connected with the case
that it would be well to know now whether any de-
fence to be founded upon any facts In the case
II his Honor concurred there was no law TO hold
Rosenberg, ne Tor one would not ask him TO be
strained OF his liberty for moment.
Counsel for the defence replied In very elaborate
and able argument, closing with an appeal 10 his
Honor not allow himself In the eagerness TO pun
ish crime, because lie might shrink In horror at tine
idea that the legitimate votes OF the citizens could
be neutralized by the votes OF men able to purchase
naturalization papers iegltimately for one and
half or two dollars pece-that he would not. under
emotions which such viany might naturally excite
in his bosom, strain the law beyond the point which
the law itself minated and which his oath forbid
him TO strain It,
Az the conclusion of counseas argument the court
adjourned TIL one O'Clock to-day.
ent