Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-10-31

c,ived papefs he swears fie knew were moi
his, and on which papers he voted. He is
the only guilty party in this transaction
Shall the only guilty man go acquit,
and those suffer whose actions are entirely
innocent? All we ask for Duffy is full
and impartial weighing of the testimony y.
Take the evidence ef Smith asyon would
that of an honest, upright man. and there
Is nothing against Duffy. There is not q
shadow of suspicion against Mr.; Duffy, !
think the testimony Of sJndge Pughlts al
testifies that James Smith called for pa
persY presented the necessary proof Jand
j that the papers were issued. Smith says
the paper; were not for him. Then Duffy
delivered them in mistake. Can a man be
punished for mistake, when it is not Q
guilty mistake? The public is moi
injured by such mistake. A man
do not belong to him, and votes upon them
By that vote alone the public is injured.
hope, for the honor and esteem In which
all hold Judicial proceedings, that no inno-
cent man shall suffer in his Reputation and
pocket. Your honor owes a duty to the
State, but higher duty in protecting I'M
nocent men, There is an adage in law thai
1t is better that ten guilty men should esi
cape than that one innocent man should
suffer.
MR.. oLDS' ARGUMENT.
| I regard it as a duty to reply, with q
good deal of deliberation, to Mr.. Wilson's
address to the Court. Now, sir, Mr.. Will
sons remarks are personal to me. He says
that the counsel for the United States in
tended to argue this case as an appeal tc
the people. Your honor is aware that there
was a-proposition to submit this case with
out argument Your honor asked that the
| ohnnld ho I
| words substantially as quoted by Mr.. Will
son. This morning 1 ascertained that he
had misunderstood me. Mr.. Olds related
| a conversation between himself and Mr.
Wilson, in which Mr.. Wilson was reported
to have said he would be willing to submit
the case but for Mr.. Olds' "infernal propo-
sition" of the previous night 1 say thai
remarks in the hands of the reporters
to be published in the public
prints, to beIunprofessional, ,ungentlemanly
and dishonorable. I say this because Mr.
Wilson is here. / would not say it if he
were not here. In the language of the
statute, MIR. Duffy is charged with ,dispos-
ing of certificate of naturalization to q
person other than the person named. On
| the day named in Smiths testimony, he
says he met McGill and the other one, and
they told him to 60 to Duffy's Hall and gel
his papers: that he went there and got
them from Duffy. He swears that he is
not now citizen of the United States; thai
he has not made the oath required, nortfur.
! nished the proof necessary to make him a
citizen.s The only Inference to be drawn
from Smiths testimony is that he Joined
with these, other parties to obtain
his naturalization papers by fraud
Duffy was party to this fraud
For the purposes of this case, there
can be no doubt of the genuineness
of the certificate issued by Judge Pugh to
James Smith. There is no doubt but that
James Smith was also party to the fraud
The case rests on Smiths testimony, cloud
it as you may by tile fact that he is parti-
ceps cr,minis. The duty of this Court is to
see that there is reasonable suspicion OF
Duffy's guilt, not that he is guilty. y our
Judgment would be that the sworn testi-
mony before you shows there are strong
circumstances of suspicion to bind the de-
fendant over for trial. On finaltrial the
jury must be satisfied beyond suspicion
lied without suspicion that he
is innocent. The testimony clearly
indicates that the suspicion of Dur
fy's completely does exist. The language
of the statute under which this prosecu-
ton was commenced does not require that
the person disposing of naturalization pa
pers to persons other than those for whom
tuCy w fuLCllQcu, nave u CTlluludl lu-
tention. 1t is sufficient that he SO disposed
of it. Our courts are full of instances of
this kind of criminal negligence in civil
cases. Ii a man undertakes to- deliver a
paper to party, he pledges himself by his
act to deliver tito the proper person. 1t
is not necessary for US to make out case
of conscious guilt. All that is necessary
for us to do is to show chat there is q sus-
picion OF guilt. IF your honor shall find
that thQ ic innnoQnt 70 ehnnl1 hp die
charged. Ifyou shall be satisfied that there
is suspicion of his guilt, he, should be
bound over. -.cT,.,,, -, :
Mr.. Metcalf made an explanation sot9 his
speech, in reply to Colonel Wilson'S re-
marks. 5ll)-........-. .-.- }EiEtIAA ~
/The Court said in substance:
With reference to the facts in this case
and the principles involved, it is fortunate
we are not compelled to regard an abusive
| press-or an unsympathizing audience, but
seek only to be guided by the principles of
right and Justice. When the law under
which this suit is brought was passed, the
llcountry was excited as never before. The
Hartford convention was in session OF
about to assemble, and people resorted to
llextreme measures in support of their polit-
ical opinions. 1t is not SO now. AS to the
facts and law OF this case there are two
points that go to make up my Judgment
First. the publicsafety. Second, the safety
of the individual. A man. shall be held tc
be Innocent until he is proved guilty,is 3
maxim sound in morals and law, If the
defendant was mere duct, as the evidence
shows, a channel only through which thess
papers passed, he is no more guilty than the
street ear which carried him and thepaper'
to Duffy's Hall. While it appears thai
wrong has been done, it does not appeal
that the defendant is the guilty party. Hs
is, therefore, discharged.
The verdict was received with cheers ane
clapping of hands, by the multitude. q