New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-09
THE FULLERTON TRIAL.

JOHN A. osBoRN's TESTIMONY.
The trial of Judge William Fullerton, Tor
Matchmaking was resumed yesterday. at IL a. M before
Judges Woodruff and Blatchford. Formidable ph"anA
OF lawyers and reporters and as many spectators a
could find chance sit stand in the narrow circuit
Court room were promptly in attendance. The list Of
Government witnesses was called by the crier ana as
most OF them were believed to be In attendance wne
only few answered to their names, special meass
were taken to provide seats ior Inen' anu W '"''
Judge Woodruff directed the limiting OF the ena an,n
on 81 each witness and the discussion OF interiocuIoy
questions TO one the counsel on each side INC Gov
eminent then called their first wlsness nv
torney Pierrepont am uSed states soS have %ea
that Office since the OF June 1861; know Aircd A.
BeIknap one OF the defendants. -,,.
titled copy of a commission from the Treasury Depart
ment signed by Hugh McCulloch. dated washington,
as SpfG om the time M Of his oca OATH receive
peIIses incurred in the discharge OF his duty.
Clarence A. Seward objected to the introduction OF THIS
commission on the ground that It nmateriai ana IT
relevant and that statute gives the Secretary Oh the
Treasury power TO appoint such special agents: -,
Considerable examination OF law books herenpon en-
sued and several statutes were cited as the Rs
under which the wsd 70 sa stated
that proposed to offer this evidence under all the
OF the except b fe oo.sp does not
clothe Beknap with the authority necessary 70 commit
e o o sm tn have official capacy or he could not
mt it, and else could conspire with MIN IN 'ha'
Mr. Seward made detailed rgument against admitting
the commission, aud said: This paper onered III eV
dence as proving that Beknap was charged with the exc
cution OF the laws and our alegaons that
gave him such authority rpower We oJect 10 ls
ducton because specifies the Office TO which appoints
him. and the law decides and prescrbes the duties Oh tine
officer not leave the extent of those duties sub
ject To judicial expansion Beknaps duties under ms
commission precisely defined. and by no construction
can the Especial agent be construed so as TO give
the man so appointed authority TO go pIoWng apout On
general investigation into the affairs o persons charged
with frauds Therefore, Belknap had no ai,
any of the acts specified in this indictment ana
there such authority given by tins comnsaiOn IL
is irrelevant and should not be admitted,
The Court decided without argument from the prose
under Sec Of the Act OF 1864 which authorizes the APP
ponmcn of officers such Belknap is represented TO
me then offered in evidence the oath
OF office taken by Belknap on the llh june 1865 before
Dir. Seward objected on the ground that Mr.. Osborn
had no authority to administer this "ron-clad" oath,
under the United States before lie Is authorized to per
form the OF that Office and If that OATH was not
was as takon all. and Beknap never became
authorized to perform duties Of Special Agent OF the
vested solely in Court or In officer thereof Moreover
there statute f8 nssG o. e@G nnt aea mart
10 called a departmental oath 10 all the
employees under him. aud certain officials are specified as
authorized 10 administer this OATH implying that with
ont this specification they would have no such power
But the rO-cad oath" stands naked and alone. and II
was the intention OF Congress to have IL administered
with due sOlemny by specially authorized officer, and
United States Commissioners nowhere thus author
ized II is customary the Clerk of Court TO admin
iser an oath. but has been decided that Deputy
Clerk (which office Mr.. Osborn understood to have
heidi has not power to do so Counsel reviewed the
acts comforting power on United states Comms
authorized to administer oaths Of Office
In reply Judge PeLrepont sd tlat thls oath comes
made to the officer who shall administers Under
the m as on g enef on he os ps G
form its duties and receive It's emolunens, without ln'
curing any of It's responsibilities; and he might even
blackDa and cxtort money ana then, when indicted,
turn around confess everything. aud say 4" Because
my oath before Mr.. Osborn no law touches me- IL
this is the case the certainly In very strange
ditiOn and don't believe Congress contemplated such
state things but rather meant that the oath might be
administered by any duly authorized to administer
oahs United States Commissioners certainly are, for
during the last two four persons have been sent
10 State Prison for taking oaths falsely before Comms-
sioners Of tins Court.
OTneys argument 10 bc merely claim that Beknap has
comutcda crime for which he can go unpublished
Osborn should have power TO administer the ronclad
oath BESIDES the law provides that Jndses sha admin,
Alter brief recess Judge Woodruff announced that
the Court had decided to admit the oath evidence, but
without intending TO forecloe the consideration OF the
question hereafter.
Examination resumed by the DistrctAttorucy At the
date of tins OATH June H. 1863 held the office of Deputy
Clerk of the District Court. well of United States
Commissioner; was first appointed Master in Chancery
1861, making Oicio United States Commissioner:
think some trouble arose about my powers and IN 1850
'67 WAS appointed, in name. United states Commits
OHer have been familiar with the course Of practice
before United States Commissioners since 1861; have
had great deal To do; when an application was made
for arrest the complainants iNere usually sont
TO tho District Attorneys Office, and some one
there prepared the affidavit and even tho warrant aud
then brought the complaint and the papers before me.
and the issued then 1t was gwen TO the
District Attorney, aud he would place II in the hands OF
the Marshal after the arrest the prisoner brought
before the Commissioner and baed If IL was bailabe
utieuse and day was fixed for an examination the
then the case went TO the District Attorney aud the
Grand Jury In 1868 when an examination was waived,
and the District Attorney notified 1t was customary
for the prisoner give bond appear at Court, aud
that bond filed in the Clerks office OF that Coutt,
whether District or Circuit
The affidavit of Jacob Dupuy dated June H. 1868 sworn
to that day. and charging Thos f. smith with con-
then read by the District Attorney and offered and
admitted in evidence. Judge Pierrepont called the at.
tenIon OF the jury To the fact that the signature TO this
affidavit and the statement that II was sworn to before
Belknap had been erased. aud then proceeded with
Drect-I don't know positively in whose handwrit:
ing this affidavit Is. but | believe il TO be tnat OF
Pinc-st;; Did not know Dupny at that tune; !
o "a H red& a Sl that the a av e
should be signed by the complainant in my
Belknap; Ihad decided that ho had authority ad
minister an oath as foundation for warrant either
scratched out the signature or directed it to be done
and then Dupuy signed 1t Ia presence;
think Mr.. Knox brought this affidavit 10 my olice
the afternoon OF the ltb the time that admin
stered the ronclad oath to Mr. Belknap they requested
me to have warrant prep.Ied Tor Thomas T. smith t
prepare the warrant until the morning OF the l2l the
first knowledge hdu Fullerton or MI BclRnhp
were about TO Institute proceedings Tor ferreting out
and said that Mr.. Fullerton wished To me at
his office tins about tue 7th or 9TH OF June or it may
earlier; went to Mr. Fulertons office at No
Pine-st, and there introduced TO Mr. Bcknap by
! Mr.. FullertOn Mr.. Beknap stated 10 me that lie
was special agent Of the Treasury Department, aud
bad employed Mr.. Fullerton special counsel under the
fdrecOn OF the Secretary Of the Treasury Mr. Fullerton
said he wished to consult with me about my powers
! Commissioner and asked mo to dehne them which
ondeavored to do as far as could from memory no
asked whether | could issue warrants without the
| knowledge Of the DistrictAttorncy; said that Mr.
Belts ard had always claimed that right but tho GUS
i fnn1 l.II a. nj q