The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-09-21
THE COURTS.

SATURDAY alluued 70 an act Oh congress
which had not been referred 10 In the open
Ing lie had a right 10 reply.
The Court said q reply was unnecessary.
Judge Fisher said that the motion was
that the Court should instruct the Jury TO
return a verdict OF not guilty because there
was O variance between the Indictment and
the proof offered In the case. He was dis.
posed to deny the motion, not because he
believed the Indictment perfect for he
thought II would support motion In arrest
Of Judgment but because there was evidence
tending to support It's allegations. The allie
CATION here was that tho accused had re-
moved certain papers, printed and stamped
and prepared in part to be put In circulation
on behalf of the United States as circulating
notes. Now, there was some evidence
whether satisfactory TO the jury or not II
was not for him to say-but there was CYL.
dencc tending to show that these papers
were printed and stamped and prepared In
part to be put In circulation as notes under
the authority OF the United States.
lie was inclined to view the statute as de-
scrlblng the subject Of the offence as papers
printed and stamped and In part prepared
for circulation, the words Gin part pre-
pared" referring not only to tho want Of
completeness In respect to the work to be
done upon them at the Treasury, but also In
respect to the want Of signatures, &C., after
going to tho bank. But he did not think
that the indictment followed the statute,
and he must say that the indictment Is dc.
1clent. The act Of Congress governing the
case Is still more so. It would puzzle any
member OF the bar TO determine what the
act meant. This is q penal statute, In dcro.
CATION Of the common law, and must he con-
strued strictly IN fdvorem hJertdts. The
statute, leaving out all the intermediate
clauses, would read: "That II any person
shall, without any authority Of tho United
States, take and carry away any paper,
printed and stamped In whole or In part, and
Intended to be prepared to be Issued or put
into circulation by or on behalf OF the
United States, as any Of the papers specified
In the first section" The first section spcci-
1cs: "Any bond, bill, note, certificate, eou.
pom, postage stamp, revenue stamp, frac-
tionnl note, or other paper or instrument
now authorized or which shall hereafter be
authorized by law" lie held that while II
was possible there might DO n variance be-
tween the act Of Congress and the indlct.
ment, yet there seemed to him 10 be evidence
tending to prove the allegations Of the iu-
dlctment. lie therefore oyerrulcd the mo-
ton Of the prisoner.
Mr.. Phillips moved the court to quash the
| Indictment because II describes no offence
against the United States. lie said that the
indictment did not follow the statute, and
consequently under II the accused could not
be found guilty OF statutory offence. This
Indictment was certainly not available at
common law, and II would be useless to
waste further the time Of the court and of
the jury.
Mr.. Darlington did not pretend that the
Indictment was good at common law. 1t
was drawn under the statute by one of the
best lawyers of the District, and be had the
opinion Of some Of the best counsel In the
city that 1t was amply sufficient. He hoped
that the court In case Of this Importance
would certify the case to the court In banc,
and have the opinion OF all the judges upon 1t.
Mr.. Norris thought 1t was too late now
after the evidence had begun to move 10
quash.
Mr.. Riddle said that there was in this case
the clear declaration of the Court that the
Indictment did not describe the offence, that
the indictment was not drawn under the
statute. There might be proof Of crime
under the statute, but there was no proof Of
crime under the indictment. Prepared by q
good craftsman, just as II good craftsman
could not blundcr sometimes! What was
the use of OBTAINING the court longer.
Judge Fisher. ! am Of the opinion that O
motion to quash comes from the defendant
too late at this point. II can be made n
any time by the prosecution.
Mr.. Riddle. viii the Court permit us &c
file motion to discharge the jury.
Tho Court. No. Go on with the evidence
Mr.. Riddle. VIII your Honor note au ex
ccptlon.
Mr.. Phillips opened tho case for the dc
fence, and after abiding to the opinion o
the Judge that the indictment was fatally
defective, proceeded to say that the defence
would show that up to the period Of this
charge the accused had borne a stainless
reputation; that the whole case against him
rested on the testimony of Marian Harris
whom II would be shown was utterly unrell
able. To the testimony Of experts that thu
writing on the notes was Schurman's, the,
would oppose the testimony Of other expert
that the signatures did not resemble Schur
mans hand.
:. II. Kaufman, sworn; Witness is one o
the proprietors Of the Fccning Star. Wa
engaged In 1867 In the Office Of the Secrctar!
, Of the Treasury. Witness was there from
1909; knew accused, and knew his hand
writing; (notes eNaminedD witness does no
think these signatures to be schurman'
hand. There was striking resemblance
between Schurman's capital cps" and "T's'
on the notes.
Mr.. johnson, (coloredi) Witness Is now
, member Of the grand jury. Witness ha,
known schurman from boyhoodj had beef
associated with him In tho Fiftccnth-strce
Presbyterian church management and other
Wlscs iluu cmplOycu nun 10 40 WTltinB UNI
had corresponded with him. (Notes shown.
Witness did not think tho signatures resem
bled that Of Schurman; did not think h
could write so good hand as the signatures
: Witness knows that Schurman has an excel
, lent character. Never heard word agalns
his character.
! Cross. examined: Mr.. Norris examined til
witness at length touching each letter, with
, out changing his opinion.
A.. HI -. iii
. operator and cashier; makes his living b,
writing; would not like to set himself up a
/ an expert, but thought he could dctermln
y tho genuinencss of handwriting. (Note
; shown.) Thought that the signatures on til
notes was In freer hand than Schurmal
! could write; did not think that Schurmai
u wrote these signatures; witness was secretar
: oftho Columbia Building Association; abou
year ago, In May, schurman borrowed $50
from the association.
Cross-cxamincd. Witness has seen schur
) man write four or five times; tho ems" Il
) Schurman's hand and on the notes arc alike
the "S's" were somewhat alike; most s.
. were alike.
Mr.. Brewster. Witness IL agent OF tn
PhmniX Mutual Insurance Company in thi
; city; on the 10th of March, 1867, witncs
paid to Mrs. VIM. B. Ellis, In the presenc
: of the accused, $1,000; thinks the none
y was handed to Schurman.
n Mr.. Everbach. Witness Is clerk in the ei
: Enlistment Of John +. Ellis Schurman, /
!. March, 1867, bought piano of that estat
!, llshment; the cost was $500, and 1t was pal
:, for, $50 In cash, and the remainder Of th
!, sum in notes of s25 each, and one of S5(
: payable monthly, beginning March 4, 1857
. these notes were all finally settled, but nc
!. until some of them had been returned fror
bank.
4 Mr.. Assistant Secretary Hartley: Witncs
= is acting Assistant Secretary ofthc Treasury
y knew accused, and while In the Department
considered his character good.
Mr.. West; Witness Is chief clerk in th
Treasury Department. The character c
the accused while messenger Of the Dcpar
mcnt was good.
Mr.. Bell testified that the accused was tn
G treasurer of Eureka Lodge, aud, as such, !
g July, 1867, had 1895 belonging to the Lodge
c he accounted for the same faithfully. b
: fore this charge, witness never heard hi
n good name questioned Knows Schurman'
' writing. (Notes shown.) Docs not thin
that Schurman's writing.
II Cross-cXamined; Witness does not claiI
Q to be an expert, but can read almost an
{ handwriting.
l. Thomas WpIph Witness Ia haIliH Il, n,