The New York herald., 1870-03-09
THE FULLERTON CASE.
Important YcStimony-Initiation Of the Con-
spiracy Proceedings that Led to the
Present Prosecution.
Great Interest Manifested in the Proceed.
ings-Debate ON Objections Raised
Commissioner Osborn Again
on the Stand.


on the Stand.
The trial OF the case OF the United States against
William Fullerton was resumed yesterday in the
United States Circuit Court, before Judges Woodruff
ana Blatcnford The court opened at eleven O'Clock
In the morning at which time every spot within the
court room had Its occupant, the crowd exceeding
that which had gathered at the opening Of the case
on the previous day. Every possible accommoda
ton, BY direction OF the Bench was provided by
Mr. Hamilton Keefe. the crier Of the cours for the
counsel employed. Tor the reporters OF the press and
the large numbers of the legal profession who
crowded the space inside the bar. The greatest at
tention was paid to the proceedings throughout the
session and, though the court room was densely
crowded and some considerable crushing occurred
from time to time, rem arkabe degree OF quiet ana
order prevailed.
Judges woodrun ana Natchrord having taken
sheir Seats the presiding Judge notified the counsel
ON both sides that he would permit only one counsel
on either side TO proceed with the examination Of
witnesses. and 70 reply interlocutory questions.
Mr.. Stougnton hoped the Court would permit one
counsel who might raise objections to any evidence
ofercd to appoint his associate to speak upon the
objections he might raise, II such course should
be deemed advisable.
This was granted.
BEI.KNAP's COMMISSION OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.
Commissioner Jonn A. Osborn was recalled as
witness for the prosecution and being sworn test-
ned that he was appointed United States Commis-
sloner in 1901.
Nr. Plerrepont offered the commission OF Major
Belknap, one Of the defendants, appointing him
special agent of the Treasury IN connection with
the revenue department. In this city, In evidence;
but
reception on the ground that 1t was irrelevant and
snat the law did not authorize the appointment OF
such officers as special agents.
MI. Plerrepont claimed tnat he had right to OFFER
the commission, as the nth section OF the revenue
laws passed In July 1885, provided that no revenue
oficer should receive other than his Official salary
for his services.
MI. St0ughton would ike to see the section on
that point, contendiDg that there was no count IN
the Indictment which had any reference to the COM
mission of Belknap or his duties, and as there was
NO law authorizing the appointment Of special
agents OF the Treasury Department the document
could not be legally admitted IN evidence.
Mr.. Tracy said the first and second counts OF the
Indictment covered the point.
Mr. Stoughton then proceeded to argue against the
admisslbility OF the document, but
Mr.. Clarence A. Seward, in supporting the objec.
the very foundation OF the charge laid on the ndict-
ment. The evidence which has been offered has
been stated as applicable to all the counts except the
third. And as to the third they would snow that,
even admitting the allegations IN the Indictment,
no offence was committed. He contended that
Belknap was not such an 0llcer as described in the
Indictment and clothed with the power stated in
can be Tne sttnte e tns ar
any collector deputy collector assessor, assistant
assessor inspector, district attorney, marshal or
OIher Onlcer agent or person charged with the exc
Cuton or supervision. Of the execution OF any OF
the PROVISIONS OF the act shall demand, accept
or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, as
payment, Gift or otherwise any sum OF money or
other property OF value for the compromising, ad-
justment or settlement Of any charge or complaint
Tor any violation alleged violation OF any Of pro-
VISIONS OF the act except as provided by law, he shall
be guilty OF mlsdemeanor. Now, our allegation Is
conferred no sucn authority or power on Belknap
(Mr. Seward reviewed the counts, nine In number,
IN the indictmenL and the various prOvslOn5 or the
statute under which the counts were formed and
coDstrued.) Tne grand objection raised Is that
the law appointing special Treasury agent cannot
be extended to cover acts charged IN the inaict
ment. The law speeches. decides ana Drescrlbes
the duties OF that 0alcer and the extinction
judicial expansion The law authorizes the
Secretary OF the Treasury to appoint special agent
Of the Treasury Department, and wnen such ofiicer
has been appointed af1Xes to the Otncer the duties
ne VIII nave TO perform. The law prescrlDes those
duties with such eXacLness and precision tnat 1t is
Impossible for tne Court TO give expansion to those
duues OF to suppose those oincers could perform
duties other than those SO explicitly provided
for by law. Belknap, he cOntended, had not acted
IN The matters charged against him under the du-
thority OF this COMMISSION, and consequently had
Ment.
Judge Woodruff referred counsel to section lour OF
the act OF June 80, 1854, which proyiues that the
Secretary OF the Treasury snall nave authority to
appoint first five and Afterwards ten revenue agents
whose duties shall be under the direction Of the sec
retary OF the Treasury 10 aid in the prevention de-
lection and punishment of frauds on the internal
revenue, and IN the enforcement and collection
MIR. Seward-I have the statute before me, your
Honor. We contend your Honor, that Belknap did
not nave any sucn ollical dunes to perform as are
alleged IN the Indictment ana Tor the non
performance OF winch, 1t Is alleged, he
was paid $4,000 by Smith. There IS no
BelKnap demanded, accepted or received any COM
pensati0n reward IN the performance OF ms oifl-
clal duties and that ne was guilty of eXtortlOn or
wilful oppression IN the discharge OF such duties;
because IN TACT Belknap had no such duties to per-
form and the attempt to clothe him here with
powers under TINS commission as special agent Is
warranted by law and seems to US grounds suni-
clent to exclude Inc commission as evidence.
Judge Woodruff, Without requiring counsel for
the government to respond, sald-Tne Court are OF
opinion inat the commission sufficiently SHOWS that
1t was an ap pointment under the act OF June 1864
sectiOn iour which authorizes the Secretary of TIL
Treasury to appoint the revenue agents therein
mentioned.
Admitted.
OBJECTION TO THE OATH OF OFFICE BY BELKNAP
AS EVIDENCE.
Mr.. PerrepOut then read and offered in evidence
the official oatn OF ofce under the commission taken
by Belknap before Commissioner Osborn.
Mr.. Seward objected to the official oath being
accepted testimony, and called the attention OF
she Court to the twelfth United States statutes at
large, page 502, which prescrlDes the oath-called
the '.lrOn-cad Oath'-tO be taken by all persons
holding office under the federal government from
the date OF the passage Of the ac Mr.. Seward con-
tended tnat this oath mad never been legally taken
by Belknap and that, consequently, he could
not have legally entered upon the Office
ne held and could not, therefore, have violated any
la avva Az .1lC ~ 40
acts alleged In the Indictment He commended IN
this conviction that Commissioner OSBORN, before
whom Blknap took the lr0n-cad oatn mad no au-
thorty administer that oath anyDOdy, all such
authority pelng exclusively vested in the United
States Circuit Court or judges thereof. Tne OATH
must therefore, be lnadmisslble aS evidence
Court reYeN Ned Lhe pulnL raised and said that