The New York herald., 1868-06-02


TOT ne took u out and ooked AZ H. according 70 thls
witness and stated that he believed i was ali rignL
examined exam b. c.e ssp s,s s sssa hsa ,s ssss
clusion that u was all night. Now IN he haf really
made the exam,nai,on INTO NE saneisney of the
and condition of the snretis they were the most
important names on the bond-sarsies Cor the prin-
cipal. Any examination Instituted b. any person of
common understanding villa q yie~ u s-cerssn ire
suficlency of the bond Or the responsibility ~ N for
any pnrpcse would oox & 70 'ns ,hss q me sure
In this place should have followed thai vcs. Their
places Of residence are accurately sisen upon tue
OF them according 60 Q wifness-a respcctsole VT
ness, whose tenant ne ~as-teiis Ne ~ Mein taai he
r yea within M , Ten mlnass ,,hpn ' soas mile fren
the ONCE. n Callicof had gone there, or hs had
sent there 20 inquire of these persons te anduen,
the case-oi the band would have been re-
yealed. There - also another Circumstance in
not To be overlooked The experiment Vas tired
upon Cacot to get permit 20 remove this sni~kes
without any bond. Indicating therchy unmisiakahly,
q fraud by using CaiicOtt and his Ofcer m the re-
moyai Of the whiskey. You fecolleci the appcaiion
by Cunningham, VINO applied 10 tallicou for Two
McMullen. which was pointed out 20 hIm by Gun
nlnghani. and which permits he was requested 10
s, sign by his friend who had mal. these MARKS and
OF bond The meaning of this application could
not be misunderstood IL was openly and undis-
guisedy made ana rot for no other result u the APP
plication were complied with. than 10 defraad the
government But am sorry 10 say-sorry 10 be Oh
liged TO say-hat Calicot entertained the app,ica-
tion-receiyed the blank permits for further con-l
Grafton hat II. according 90 the evidence Of tAe Wit
ness he took therel and said he would see about u
instead OF rejecting them instantly ana with ind gna-
ton. Now, 10 say the least of TINS, Calic0tt. we
see. was advised and had "a knowledge thai these
parties, Cunningham and McMuilen. two Of the con-
spirators, intended 30 commit fraud upon the gov
ernnent. He was thus put upon his guard by this
fraudulent conduct aud u an honest onlcer ne would
naturally have seen 10 IL that by no subsequent
trvance OF others, such a. getting up fraudulent
bond, deceptive bond or otherwise, the frauds
should succeed. lie was admonshed that these per.
sons had made an expert nent upon him with a view
to get these two hundred barrels from the Wilson
warehouse without payment OF the tax. without any
security and without any bond.
The first lot OF two hundred barrels was removed
by means OF this bond and the permit was given
being taken to Boston, according TO the conditions
terms OF the permit large portion OF II was
neehborbooa 1aseh Ss and e m ,ns Il
embraced McMulen as one OF the parties.
Thus the fraud was perfected. shall not
go INTO detail; YOU remember the disposition that
was made OF them. large portion Of u was sold
FOR 81 80 and the money went into the hands OF Nc
Mullen. Afterwards another application was made
to the Collector for the removal OF 2l barrels from
the same warehouse and by the same parties. This
lot OF whiskey was removed on the 2ith or 25th Of
May. Now, 1t IL admltted--it IL not To be denied
upon the evidence-that this second lot was removed
without any bond The old permit was used, the
date altered from the lih To the 25th OF NAV, and
the transportation order OF the same date the 2ith
of May, signed by Callicott, was procured. These
papers were procured by McMulen, who afterwards
delivered them to Cunningham, and upon them
the whskey was removed, 2l1 barrels, TO Boston.
according to the directions OF the order and TO these
diseres in the neighborh0od, especially TO that of
Brown and others. Unexplained, this Is manifest
fraud by the Collector no bond no payment OF the
taxes. An explanation has been offered by the
learned counsel for the defence, and t L. for 10
examine 1t and for you TO determine the W light OF
it-pecularly the place and province OF the jury. II
is this: that McMuen altered the old permit himself
from the 4th TO the 2ih and that the transportation
order, which was genuine and bore the same date
the 24h.was got under @ the snpposton that Il was
the 14th OF May-issued ten days before this
transportation order IT l. admitted, not denied,
but that the alteration OF that old permit from the
14th OF May to the oath was made by McMulen. II
is proved to be in his handwriting, and doubtless he
altered 1t. The transportation order dated on the
same day OF the alteration and signed by Caicott he
must have procured. He was the one who obtained
the permit for the second lot nd brought the papers
and delivered them to Callicot, who delivered
them to Dayton, the storekecper. McMullen,
therefore, must have got the transportation
the first permit that was given on the 14th conferred
full authority upon these parties to remove two
Wilson. II required no transportation order-that is,
none given at the time. But the permit was full
authority to the parties for the benefit Of McMulen
for 1t Is agreed that he the master sprit-for his
benefit full authority to remove two hundred barrels
Well, the argument is-and you must give It such
weight you think 1t entitled to-that the collector
may have supposed that the first two hundred bar
rels Of whiskey were not immediately removed upon
the permit Of the l4th OF May, and that they may
have remained there In the warehouse ten days. and
that this order was given for the purpose OF accom-
panyng that first permit with view TO remove the
first lot OF two hundred barrels. Now, that Is the
argument; that Is the explanation which the learned
counsel has given: 1t is for you to look at It and
the removal Of this second lot and the papers upon
which II was made. Now, Deveau, who was the
order; he was witness and testrfes that he wrote
II and that 1t is In his handwriting; and he IL the one
you will recolect when that was returned by Dayton
to the Office that was conserned In the alteration OF
the date Of that order from the oath to the l6th lie
has given us no explanation OF this transportation
order which IL written by him, and the duty that
specially belonged to his ONCE or to his department
as clerk. He has not given any explanation that 1t
was issued for the purpose of accompanying the first
permit OF May Ia; he has not given any explanation
OF t-eft 1t unexplained. Now, there was such IN
discretion in getting this transportation order very
official duty. The Collector knew that he
had given this authority for the removal OF the two
arehonse and no tbus yyes second % autborsy rs
remove the same number Of barrels ten days after.
wards, leaving 1t open TO these parties engaged In
both applications to him-ttese parties who had
made application for the removal Of the first two
hundred and had also subsequently renewed the ap-
pcatlon for two hundred and eleven barrels more,
and who had in the first application Indicated dis.
position 70 perform very questionable action In the
circumstances and IN connection with these parties
who were thus fairly suspected-would 1t not have
been wise on the part OF public officer before put
ting into their hands these two authorities, to in3-
tute an inquiry, either by himself or by his agents.
clerks deputies at the warehouse OF Wilson to
whether the first two hundred barrels had not al
ready been removed. understand that 10 was not
over mile or at least two or three miles from the
Collectors ONCE to this distery and to this ware
house. ltwould have been no great trouble, consumed
not much time 10 have Instituted this inquiry when
the application was for two hundred barrels more,
TO whether the ir5t permit had been used In the
transfer from the warehouse OF the whiskey. Now,
gentlemen, there Is more topic am going to call
your attention to for moment, and then shall
leave the TO you, and that ID the circumstance
connected with the application OF the District Attor
ney the 2sth OF May for the privilege OF examining
these bonded warehouses, B. You have that account
ney. What led to this application Is q fact that
seems to be In some dispute between the learned
counsel although rec0llect distinctly the testimony
of Mr.. Allen, and II Is on my notes. Twenty.
one barrels Of the last lot OF the I'll were seized
In the carts on the 25th and were In the street
In front of the Office OF the District Attorney.
The seizure, OF course produced some sen.
safion, particularly among the parties who
Interested In the removal. and on the part OF
the District Attorney, who was looking TO the nte
rests OF the government. 1t seems that Mr. Allen In