Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-02-13
the TROUBLES OF srOKEs,
IEus sBCOND TRIAL BEGUN
Receptions . tho IaAictmssi--Rsila OF she
Ceurt-Ta-sl.soay Of witps.sss-RIspe
Lettsia .a.....


Cesrr-Ts-sl,soay Of witss.sss-MpSe
The jury In the case against W. B. Stokes
for prosecuting claims while member OF
Congress having failed TO agree, the second
trial under the same Indictment was begun
yesterday, the Government presenting mas
Of new testimony, and the counsel for Stokes
adopting new llue Of defence. District At
torney Fisher, Mr.. Harrington and Mr.. Will
llams appeared for the Government, and Mr..
Riddle aud Mr.. Cri tendcn for the defence,
Mr.. Stokes maintaining his usual place beside
bis counsel.
THE JURINES.
When the jurors were called Mr.. Riddle
asked II 1t was the same Ilry that was sworn
on the last trial, and being Informed that II
was not, said be was ready TO proceed.
The openings were merely formal, and then
the prosecution called lts witnesses.
Nj. Moulton testified that he was an EN-
ployee In the Pension Office, aud was familiar
with these claims.
Mr.. Riddle at this point raised the objection
that the Indictment did not set forth any
claim with sufficient certainty. In stating the
claim alleged 10 be- fraudulently prosecuted
the yagueness Of the Charge was such that
the AE dld not permit any evidence to prove
IL for such oyidenoe might he applied to
dozen dlherent claims. ..
Mr.. Harrington Appreciated that In plead.
ing 10 the Indictment the defendant had
waived bis objection to II.
Nj. Riddle claimed that this Indictment had
defects which could be cured at any stage Of
the trial. Some defecis p.lght bp cured BY
verdict, but he claimed thsse were not to be
90 cured.
Tue evidence was admitted.
Mr.. NJ. continued, and testified that Stokes,
while member Of Cougre-s, came frequently
TO the office to press the claims OF Captain
Beattyi scouts.
Mr. Riddle. DO not members OF Congress
frequently come TO lnquire. about olaima
Witness. Members Of Congress come often
TO inquire about claims,
Major Clapp testified that he was &C
quAlnted with the handwriting Of Mr.. Stokes.
Letters shown.) Those letters are In the
handwriting Of Mr.. stokes.
TnE STOKES LETTERS AGAIN.
Mr.. Riddle. We admit the handwriting Of
Mr.. stokes. These letters are old acqualnt-
ancss.
Mr.. Harrington. Az right then.
Mr.. Riddle excepted 10 the adWlsslon Of
the letters on the ground that the letters rS-
ferred 10 q special claim, while tue indict-
ment alleged not the prosecution OF certain
special claim, but tho prosecution OF some
general claims.
Mr., Harrington said that this objection
was In fact covert motion TO Quash the In
dlctmenI, on the GROUND that the Indictment
charged no crime.
The Chief Justice. The technical motion
IA 10 exclude the evidence because II does not
support the allegations Of the indictment.
Mr.. Harrington insisted that the whole
scope Of the motion was denial OF the va
lldlty Of the Indictment aud that the valid
hy OF the Indictment cpuld not be dispOled OF
under such n motion. The proper method to
try that would be by the withdrawal Of q
Juror and q formal motion to quash the In
dletment lie hoped the Court would make
that order.
The Chief Justice said that he could only
dispose OF the motion which was before the
court aud he would make no decision until
the whole ease was fully argued.
Mr.. Harrington argued tho question at
length, aud In the course OF hls remarks
quoted Bishops Criminal Law.
Mr.. Riddle. That's = very good book, bat
can write better one.
Mr.. Harrington. do not doubt It, bat II
It was as long as Que OF your indictments t
would be too yOlumlnous.
District Attorney Fisher commended that the
indictment was as particular In its speclnca-
tlOus as the act under which II was drawn re-
qulred. Al indictments were In some sense
general, aud became particular only In refer
tnce % the special act which Il charged as q
crime. In oonclpsion, he urged that II this
indictment was not d0rmed sufficient by the
court Il should At least require the case to be
argued upon q motion 10 quash. so that the
Indictment might lie qrashed u required, and
q new one found, but not allow tlIis defend
apt, Ia the light Of the facts furnished by the
at tue last trial, to go without Justice BY rea-
sou of
SOME MERE oUIBHLE AND CoBYEn or Law
growing out OF an allegation that tho evil
dsnce varies from an indictment, to which,
Uu the GROUND Assumed by the other sids, no
evidence could possibly conform.
Mr.. Riddle urged that the act Of Congress
giving this money TO Capt. Beatiy's company
was a private act creating claim, not one Of
the public actaof Congress, Of which the court
was bound TO take nOuce. This act gave
each Of the soldiers 81 Capt Beatty's COM
pauy q separate CLAIM on the Government,
and no general charge Ia au Indictment OF
prosecuting claims could besupposed TO cover
each Ot these claims, and the Indictment did
not charge that stokes prosecuted all the
claims. Nor did the Indictment set forth that
the claim was prosecuted In one Of the depart
ments Of the Government. For Anght that
appeared In the Indictment the claim might
have been prosecuted In the Court OF Claims,
and members Of Congress are not forbidden
10 prosecute claims 10 that tribunal.
WHAT THE cHIEF JUSTICE THOUGHT.
The Chief Justice said that the case came
up on melton TO exclude eyidet &C from tho
Jury. He was never disposed To regard tech
meal objections, but there seemed 10 be some
thing substantial In the reasons offered In
support Of this motion. II the case rested
now upon motion to quash the indictment,
he would feel like holding the indictment
defective, not on technical, but on substantial
reasons. The Indictment II appeared to
l.a1 a..
sion. II the members Of Beatty's company
had q joint claim, then the Indictment might
have been proper, but the statute did not
tolerate any Joint claim.
The Chief Justice quoted the act granting
the pay, &e., as showing that the grant was
To each separately. All, he added, was TO
recognize the role Of Capialn BeatIy's com
pany, when prepared, as the role Of any other
company In the army Of tbs United States,
but gave to each person thereon named
personal claim TO several and distinctive
rights separate from every other person. The
Indictment should have set forth which Of the
claims was prosecuted, and where II was
prosecuted. While this might have led the
court TO sustain motion ~ quash, that mo-
ton was not made, and the question now be.
fore the court IL one entirely different. Tue
motion now Is TO exclude evidence as not
conforming to tho Indictment.
This motion Ia presented to the court after
plea Of not guilty; after the party charged
had waived his objections 10 the Indictment.
He was not going 10 determine whether this
indictment charged any crime. "Suficlent to
the day Is the evil thereof" but u be was Us
clear on this subject rs he was Oh the subject
OF quoting the Indictment he would not
admit the evidence; but IL was not 30, and
be would leave II still an open question,
A recess was here taken.
Al the close Of the recess, Mr.. Harrington
offered paper memorandum In the hand.
writing Of Gen. Stokes.
Mr.. CTittenden urged thai this memOran-
dun was not shown TO have been given by
Gen, Stokes 10 any one. Ii night have
never passed from his hands.
Mr. Harrington. We will follow this case up.
The paper was read 10 the Jury after the
close OF Stromeyers testimony.
Mr.. STRONGER sworn; THIS paper was
handed him BY General Stokes on the occa.
sion Of his leaving the city la 1870, ms u guide
tor my conduct. Witness met Stokes al the
Capitol When he came here In 1870 With Cap
tain Beatty. Witness gave SlOkes 5000 On
account OF this thing Stokes said be Wonld
Introduce bill and get il through. After tue
bill was passed, stokes INST witness In Ten
nessee, and asked what he would make. Wit
ness said e20, 900. Stokes replied Il will be a
very nice thing for three Of US, wont Il Z" Wit
ness made no answer After this. In his room
In this city, Stokes asked witnesl how much
he would make. Witness said about S70, 900.
a -.