Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-10-31
the I ARGUMENTS oIN Z THE
DuFFY Case q
John Duffy Honorably Discharged
There is, not a Shadow of 3
Charge Against Him.

Cn3rSe against nlln.
The Probate Court room was filed witt
spectators yesterday, all of whom SCENE,
to feel deep interest in the verdict tina
should be given in the case. The argumen
was opened on behalf of the United State
by Mr.. Metcalf, who said, in substance:i
1t happens often in the investigation o
crimes, that the investigation and all tina
follows, excites the passions and feelings o
political parties; yet there can be no tri
umph tor any political party, except in the
triumph OF right. No political feelings
should influence courts. Counsel can have
no feeling of that kind. 1t often happen!
that counsel are like the blades of pair o.
scissors, seeming to cut each other, yet only
cutting what comes between them. H,
then rehearsed the mode of commencing q
criminal prosecution, and referred to the
naturalization laws, dwelling on the law
of the United States of April Nth, 1902
last sertion.] The evidence shows that the
defendant did, on October 18th, dispose OF
certificate of naturalization to James
Smith, to which I shall attempt to
show Smith was not entitled. l sup
pose that counsel will attempt to show
Iildb ufSpO50 hCduS W SClis SOu-
gress did not think so when 1t passed
the act, for that act says ''sell or dispose
Of" They will attempt to show from Web
ster that ssdisposen means to "sell ~ The
testimony shows that the witness receive
the papers from Duffy, when he had not
taken an oath or produced any testimony
as to his residence, nor took any steps to
obtain his papers legally. He gave his
name to Edward McGill, and afterwards
70. h ht=v fnh Of nrrf
fy's Hall. His testimony stands unin-
peached. Tt is proved by other witnesses
that not only this, but other certificates OF
naturalization were given to Duffy. The
only evidence to show that the papers
might be genuine, is that the Judge says
he swore erybody that applied, or his
clerk did. 1t is evident from Judge pugh's
testimony that he did not know James
Smith, and, indeed, he does not profess to.
Without necessarily charging any fraud on
the Judge or his clerk, when we consider
the great crowd of persons present, and the
papers signed in blank, Is it not perfectly
evident that this defendant is not citizen
of the United States, that he never took
any oath. and is no more citizen than if
he were in his native Canada. Here, then,
is the charge proved that this man Duffy
did dispose of naturalization papers to q
man who was not entitled to them. The
CI6Tk CduuOS buC OdIll vi udblT-
aliz4tion. Is it not certain, then, that even
If the clerk swore him, he was not natur-
allied? The clerk has no power to swear
him. l have no doubt that great number
of these papers were issued. / have no
doubt but that James Smiths name was
there. have no doubt but that long list
or names was furnished on which papers
were issued. make no appeal In party
passion. It does not become me to do it..
a. IL -.
that the defendant should be held TO an
swer.
gas !. COL. BABER's ARGUMENT.
am not surprised that lawyers, after
reading the testimony, were this morning
willing to agree to the proposition made
by the counsel for the defense yesterday,
to submit the case without argument, for
they can find no case against Mr. Duffy.
Admitting for the sake of argument that
the paper was procured by fraud, there is
not q particle of evidence to show that
John Duffy is guilty. Whatever there may
be irregular in the issuing of certificates
of naturalization, there is not shadow of
proof to show that Duffy knew of any ir-
regularity. 1t must be shown that Duffy
had knowledge of the fraud, if fraud there
was. Duffyis no more guilty in his part of
the transaction, than leighbor would be
were he to call at the Recorders office and
obtain deed and hand it to the owner, as
requested. The man Smith swcars that he
never spoke with Duffy. He says he spoke
with McGill. But what has his conversa-
tfon with McGill TO do with Duffy?
Nothing. In fact the whole testimony in
regard to that conversation, with McGill
and Bresnahan is not, and cannot be, evi.
dence before you; because Duty was not
present. Col. Baber here replied to the
of the sections of the natural
ization laws given by Mr.. Metcalf. Refer
red to Swan q CritchtieId's notes on the
laws to prove that the provision of the act
of May oath, 1928, requiring the witnesses
to be citizens of the United States, and their
names TO be entered on the record applied
only to aliens residing in this country
b b.Gween 1902 and June 18th, 1872,
There is no evidence to show that
Duffy knew how, the papers were issued,
for he only performed neighborly act.
Until this paper is set aside and proved to
be a fraud, il is conclusively a good one as
far as this man Duffy is concerned, he not
having been shown to have any completely
in the pretended fraud, but this, paper
comes under the seal Of the Court, aud
must be held as good and valid until proved
0'sfGoss .TI7f1oJ sosFH
Mfr. Olds-we admit that the paper is "a
good and sufficient certificate Of naturaliza-
tion. Tsifs1 fae5iiv tu5 asfs,sg.f1 tasas fss4.
Mr.. Baber referred the Court to sec. $50
Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. l.. What / am
is that this proceeding is con-
elusive, reasoning from analogy. What
does the evidence showp Mr.. Olds has adj
mitted that the paper is genuine one.
Mr.. Duffy then only came here to the Pro-
bate Court room to receive papers. He
knows nothing of the manner in which the
papers were procured. He took the papers
that were filled out and took themt to Duffy,s
Hall and there called the names written on
the backs. There is no evidence of guilty
intent. This man, james Smith,, is put
VI on the stand. His testimony does not
connect Duffy with this certificate. He
met McGill and asked how he, could be
ized. He was told. There is no
evidence that McGill gave him false infor-
nation. There is reason why this man
wanted papers. In 1863 he voted. He said
it was done to accommodate other people.
A man that will commit penitentiary Of
fense to oblige one set of persons, will do
the same thing to oblige another set OF per-
sons. Here you see what kind of man
this witness is. He swears that he scratch
ed the figure ssl'' out of the date, and
says he done it in moment of excitement.
All his testimony goes to show the utter
OF this man Smith. Judge
Pugh, although he cannot recollect the
man, positively swears that papers were
issued to james Smith on the 18th October.
All this testimony goes to show that there
is no case against John Duffy. I take it
then that the whole case rests on the testi-
mony of man whose whole story evil
IDENTIFY false, and who had a guilty knowl-
edge of this matter; for when challenged
he did not produce the papers, but said he
had voted in the ward before. There may
have been hastylsand loose action in the
Probate Court, yet there is not a title of
evidence to show that Mr.. Duffy knew Of
this irregulaIity or looseness. r ~. -
z. COL. Il BLAIR WILSON'S ARGUMENT. y.
/ / cannot say--as the disting uished gen.
tlemenwho represent che Government have
said-that have any remarks to make in
this presence, intended for the public ear,
or for the instruction OF the public was
both astonished and panied on yesterday
to hear it remarked as an apology or reason
h -.-e ~ -, hofa