Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-02-19
HE LATE TREASURY EMREZZLE-
MENr.
seth xohusou.s case Again Ian COurt.

Seth yohnson's case Again ian C0urt.
THE PRISONER PLEADS GUILTY AND Is SEN
TBNCKD TO ONE YEAR IN JAIL AND TO PAY
THE AMOUNT 600.
! This morning in the Criminal Court, Judge
/ Cartier. the case OF Seth johnson, charged with
/ embezzl, raent, was called-Nr. Harrington for
| the prosecution and Mr.. Riddle for the accused.
Mr.. Riddle called attention TO the tact that the
| court had on Thursday last sustained the plea n
| Tar. and had directed him TO prepare journal
| entry. That entry was not prepared that day,
andin theegenng ii was rumezed that the stat ute
| relied on had been amended by a subsequent
act. and on Friday the case was reopened. MT
Riddle argued briefly that the defendant having
been discharge d lat ended the case against him
| He read from LIST Brightly, page $780, which pre-
scribes a penalty of fine and imprisonment on
| persons who refuse to appear before ce.nmit.
| show that The accused was compelled TO testify
Ii is said that this statute Is repealed The sta
| tute cited as a repeating law simply provides
| that the testimony given to a committee shall
not be used against the witHess. Mr.. Riddle
urged that IL no new principle to grant such i'm
munity; it was In force in Great Britain. He
read the Law of 1862 and said that he did not
know ct 50 few lines embracing such mate de-
pTavity or iDeXcusable turpitude. IL says that
the former act is "amended altered and repeal
ed so as to read;' and he asked how much of the
old law is repealed? how much remains? Courts
were supposed to have no sympathies, and he
could not appeal for that sympathy, but he
would appeal 20 the Court to stand by its judg-
ment. This unfortunate young man used none
Of this money for his own benent. 1t had already
transpired that the defendant was seduced to
commit this crime by one OF the sureties of a
Treasury official.
Mr.. Harrington urged that the question was
SIMPLY on the Interpretation of the % section of
the act OF 1851. In Wallace it is laid down that
if the statute reads "Is amended to read" il
operates as a repeal. he read the acts in ques-
ton, contending that the act OF 1862 amends
that OF 1851.
Chief Justice Cartier said that the first obiec-
ton rs that the determination of the court should
be treated as final. The facts as stated were
substantial correct. The prosecution had en-
tered demurrer, the case was argued, and the
counsel found that they had been arguing on a
dead law. The court would ask to Be excused
from knowing all the laws Congress had passed.
had decided on the law as presented in this case,
and directed the counsel to draft an entry. He
had directedth clerk not 70 make an entry that
day. He hoR no hestancy in saying that had
the courts entry been made he would decide
that the case could not be reopened. Before
the entry could be made this repealiRg statute
came to light Itappeared to him that The court
appeared to be passed for the purpose OF pre-
venting a witness testimony used before
committee being used against said witness in a
upon the witness, and does not disqualify the
prosecution. 1t Is clear that Congress did nos
intend to repeal the punishment. He was in
clined to hold the law to be good. He would not
venture to pass on the c0nsttutiOnality of the
law, although one clause was repugnant to all
the cOmmOn-law rights. 1t was q serious ques-
ton, and an attractive one, for the Supreme
OF the common-law rule, as every common-law
lawyer knows. He would, however pass this
question by. He held that there has been no
conclusive ac9uittal, and that, the law having
been repealed, the plea is not good. The &C
cused would, therefore, be held for trial.
Mr.. Harrington asked that the accused be
called to plead to the Indictment.
Mr. Riddle said he desired to prepare bill of
exceptions. He had advised Mr.. johnson,
whenever he should be called on to plead, to
enter plea of guilty.
Mr.. Harrington suggested that, az the indict-
nent was a long one-fourteen c0unts-it be not
read.
Mr.. johnson was called and asked care you
guilty or not guilty." and responded, Guilty"
Mr.. Riddle said the accused was not quite
equal to the task Of making a statement, and
desired him to do so. This young man. said Mr.
r., was here in the faithful discharge OF his
tleman standing high in the estimation OF the
Treasurer, who desired that he should be &C.
commodated by cashing two checks on New York
some three years ago. These checks were not
paid, and COwan gave his note to cover the
amount which was not paid. johnson had to
provide for covering this loss, and here began
the difficulty: He made desperate efforts to
lieved that none OF the money had been used for
his own or family's uses. He stood here ready
to meet the requirements of the law, and would
ASK the court 70 take into consideration the Cir
cumstances under which he committed this
wrong.
Judge Cartier said it was a very painful dutv
to perform. He had borne a good character,
especially in the eyes OF his snperiors at the
Treasury Department, the head Of his bureau
having as much confidence in him as his son. III
II was not for the public consequences he would
make the penalty different, but he was Obliged
to look at the effect il would have on public
morals and public service. He had failed 10
find any other feature in the investigation of this
case than weakness. He would impose a sem
tence or imprisonment in the penft ent,ary for
hve years, and the prisoner to pay the amount
embezzled, (Si0, O00
Mr. Harrington called attention to the fact
That when there is no labor in the sentence the
imprisonment must be in the jail.
Judge Cartter-I will imprison no one i'm the
jail longer than enc year.
The clerk made the entry one year in Jail, and
the court adjourned.