New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-01

shah also submit the question Of guilty intent TO de-
The CBAIRMAE-Hsve you concluded your statement
Mr.. DAvIs's FEES.
Mr. DAyis-Wlth this exception should like TO say IN
reference to the Phelps Dodge co. case that nave
either directly indirectly in any form OF manner
wba tever received penny Of fee from any human
being should not have alluded 10 what the counsei
for Phelps Dodge Co. said 10 me In regard 10 tue ec'
II had that Mr.. Bliss said that some such ug
geson made to hm-that fee should oe paiu 10
me in addition to 10 him. i have also tnr 10 say,
that three occasions after that Mr. hnoS WIZ
toward me, said TO me- without speaEIng Oh ~
deey EXPECT TO eee Bat few days after
made my statement in the letter when his peen pup
lshed met Mr. Dodge on the t was the hrst Tune
had met him after the settlement completedl and
asked him whether any arrangement u InaI hnu ii
been made or whether any money So sad No." then
told him that from vhat had been SAID han got an
@ bat POSSIBLY ny. comnsr Nth such view but
wanted him understand distinctly that under no CIR
cnmstances should receive anything. I desire to say
that because The impression mas thrown out that
have been animated in what have done, espcclay III
writing that letter which 10 have given 3nense
and in which l stated that in my Judgment Pneips
Dodge co. had not been guilty OF actual iraud Dy Tue
loss Of the fee the Committee wish me to say any
thing on the subject of moees etc. an at the service
Of The c9mmittee and VIII make such 'ussef'0u' ~
Can. -, ..,oo,o,oos
WAsHTSGToS D. c.. goth March.-The Hon: Moan
Davis again appeared before the COMMITTEE anu 'o"
do not know that said yesterday, but would e1d axe
say now, that at the first meeting AZ aaness 10
nay any duties which the Government hiu Iosi Wy do
any errors or mistakes or h VI ns
and also any penalties that might nave Deeh lhculSu
he made that proposition and II is due 10 MN 10 say
that occasion he was under veS m described
Mr. DiwIsoI was about to call your attention to the
statement made by you yesterday, that IN the enforce
ment CT the Revenue laws the courts require o luz
only To find the fact OF the VOlaloh Vi Tue ""
xuth hon uuiin
Mr. DivIs~T do not think you quite understand what
said what meant to say was that where the fact OF
the violation Is admitted proved, and where IL ap-
pears that the party knew that nc was uous guy 1.
which the law declares to DE voaUn, t ,h fct heinz
the duty the Judge to direct Verdct tue iac's pehh
w Mr. DaWEs-i assum, in my question that the Court
wonId assume that the man knew what he was about
therefore If jury find that the man knew that No
was doing that he did do, and that that ac was
violation of the Revenue law, 1t brings upon MN lhe
penalty OF the law whatever may nave peeh Tue man
Mr. DAvIs-Yes; that is the law as construed
Mr. DAwEs-I understand You TO say that you thought
the law should be amended in that particular so as 20
re0ure of tine Court charge to the jury to find also
whether there was intent defraud the Government
Mr. DAvs-Yes, substantially, what we understand u
be a special verdict on that question. ..
Mr. DAwEs-The ordinary opinion Is that ia LASS sases
where jury lind that there was no intent TO @
the revenue 1t would be right for the secretary OF the
! Treasury remit the penalty. ~, .,o.... % no
Mr. DAyIs-Yes; the circumstances or the case 10 Do
considered by Secretary. of course There may be
some cases in which he should only remit IN part a..
| Mr.. DAwEs-Do you think that the Judgment OF the
iury ought 10 be passed upon by the Secretary OF the
Treasury without notice TO the officer OF tue GOV
eminent who prosecuted the suit
Mr. DAyIs-NO; think there ought to be notice.
Mr. DAwEs-D0 you think it would be wise 10 transfer
the revision the judgment OF the Court TO another
tribunal 70 pass upon without any knowledge OF What
trans pred in COurti .,,
Mr. DAWSON no l think ii would not be. think,
on the contrary that the officer OF the Government WHO
prosecuted tine suit ought to be consulted.
Mr. DAwEs-DO you think II would ne wise under any
circumstances cothe the Secretary OF the Treasury
with judicial powers
Mr. DAvIs-I do think that this power OF remission
falls within judicial powers think that 1t Is an exer
else, certain sense, OF executive clemency rather
tnau OF judicial power.