New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-05

Verdict for she GOvernment-Forty
Thousand Dollars from the Whisk J
Hing-a bic Argument of Chcster HI
Krum-Doolittle wOrried-Charge o.
judge Treat to the Jury.
The st. Louis Democrat, of Tuesday, con
tains the report OF whisky case which pos
sesses considerable interest to parties il
this city. We give portion Of the report
The important case of the United State!
VS.. four hundred and sixty-nine barrels dis
TILED spirits, Matteson x Goodell claimants
was terminated yesterday, after eight dgs
trial, 1t resulted in brilliant triumph OF
the government. The young District At
torney, Chester Il. Krum, who made his
maiden speech on the occasion, covered MN.
self with glorious iaurels. He was opposed
States, Governor Doolittle and Colonel j. ..
Brodhead, aud he proved himself worthy
the steel of these veteran advocates.
MIR. Krum commenced by saying ne came
into the case free from prejudice, and his
conclusions were the result OF earnest
thought and patient investigation. He wa:
not prepared to admit that the claimants
were entitled to 8 verdict on the ground o.
innocence. There WIS one prominent fea-
ture of the case which the claimants can no
escape from: it is the feature of fraud
Every detail of the evidence reflects anew
the fraud, and shows u doubt OF the limo
cence Of the defendants. Innocence is self
sustained; it does not seek to hide when il
vestigation is called for.
The issues of the facts are, first that these
Claiman in the month of June, 1865, were
the purchasers of these distilled spirits in
good faith, without intention offraud. This
is the issue. Mr.. Krum had no personal re.
cord to ventilate III this Case, but Was per-
forming his simple duty as an officer ofthe
government.
The attention Of the jury he said, must
have been attracted in real argument OF the
counsel by the appeal to mercy. Whist
prompts the appeal to mercy? Is it inno-
Cence? 1t is the groan OF confession--the
CRY of the criminal who begs for pardon.
La#s are intended for the protection of the
innocent and the punishment OF guiity-for
ment of guilt. 1t is upon that theory of the
law that the jury must proceed.
Let US look at this plea Of innocent pur-
Chasers. Jasper F. Thayer, the witness for
the defense, stated that Charles S. Matteson
went to the city of New Orleans early in the
spring of 1865, for the purpose of making
money by dealing in distilled spirits, selling
at prices less than the government tax
But we are told that he went there to deal
in distilled spirits, and as legitimate bust
ness. Suppose al article in which one is
dealing has been stolen, and the person
dealing in it knows it has been stolen, can
it be claimed that the dealer is doing legiti.
mate business? What is the diffe 1nce be.
tween receiving stolen goods, knowing them
to have been stolen, and dealing in distilled
spirits, knowing that it has been fraudu-
lently put upon the market2 There may be
such distinction in illinois and Wisconsin
where the gentleman (Mr. Doolittle) has
been living, but let no such difference pre-
vail in the noble State of Missouri.
But we Gre told that panic prevailed
throughout the United States III regard to
distilled spirits, particularly in New Or
leans in the autumn OF 1868, because it was
supposed that the tax would be taken off
distilled spirits. The deposition OF Cum.
mings was taken under suspicious circum-
stances. Notice to appear was served upon
MIR. Glover, the Attorney of the United
States for the district OF Illinois, but not
upon the District Attorney Of Missouri. The
certificate is dated twenty ninth November.
1867 That deposition is like the other pro-
ceedings in the defense. The United States
was not represented by nybody who knew
anything about the case. Mattessoa said
there was panic in New Orleans at the
time. Then Golding and Smith said there
was panic il distilled spirits in the summer
of 1868. Does Mr.. Hitchcock tell anything
about panic in the city OF New Orleans in
1868; Does John J. Anderson tell about
panic? IF there had been panic is it not
10 be supposed that these witnesses would
have told about il? If there was a panic,
when did it begin?-when did it end? Ham
mond says it resulted from the order OF
Hancock. Cummings says 1t Was the result
of proposed reduction in the tax Who
ever heard of going into a business in re-
gard to which there is panic?
Did you ever hear of a man going into s.
business in which he could only speculate in
loss? l will tell you why they went into
this business. Precisely, as Thayer says, to
buy stock and not pay the taxes. The price
in New Orleans was 81 so; in st. Louis it
was 81 10 to 81 80. What was the reason
that spirits brought a better price in St.
Lonis than in New Orleans? Let the
records of this court answer. 1t was owing
to the rigid discharge of his duty by the
gentleman who at that tine was the District
Attorney Of this district.
When G. S. Matteson went to the city OF
New Orleans in the spring of 1868, he had
notice that frauds were being committed on
the government by selling whisky at less
than the tax. ThaYer, his agent, had such
knowledge. Jasper F. Thayer had been in
the whisky business before. He knew Jesse
]. Irwin.
Bir. Brodhesd said this was mistake.
Mr.. Krum said: The counsel started out
with the supposition that l did not know
anything about this case. l will show them
IL.
This plea OF innocence is an afterthought in
this case. The original answer has nothing
in it claiming innocence. The first answer
was filed in September, 1868. Then they
rushed forward with this deposition, which
was filed on the fourth Of December, 1869
Now, if these claimants we're innocent,
would it not be so stated in the first answer 2
The burthen OF proof is upon them to show
that they were innocent purchasers. The
law says whenever any distilled spirits are
sold at a less price than the tax, it is pre-
sumption OF fraud. Thayer tells US that the
spirits involved in this case were bought at
the price of 81 so per gallon. Every man is
presumed to know the law. That presump.
ton rests upon these claimants. 1t is tor
them to rebut 1t. But We are told that they
took every precaution to learn what was re-
quired of them. So they brought in Mr..
Anderson to tell you that it is bis impression
that there was great deal of Illicit whisky
in this city; that the low price at which
whisky was sold in 1868 made the impression
upon his mind that the taxes had not been
paid. Is it to be presumed that a man who
had been in the bonded warehouse business
would have any doubt of the cause?
Mir. Doolittle, who had become somewhat
fdgety, here arose and read a part OF Thay-
er's testimony.
Mr.. Krum continued, and reviewed TIE
testimony of McBeth and other witnesses.
He quoted Judge Durelrs decision that if
the brands were upon the barrels that was
CONCLUSIVE evidence that all was right. In
that case the only TACT put in was the seiz.
ure. On the other hand, Judge Blatchford
decided that if the spirits were properly
branded that fact alone would not be sufii-
Gent evidence that the taxes we're paid, and
ne SO charged the jury.
Section twenty OF the act Of the second of
March, 1867, says the same. 1t is the province
OF the court to examine the evidence given