New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-03-31
TIE FIRST OVIBBLE .

The first and only witness called was Joseph
II. Robinson, Assistant Solicitor OF the Treasury. who
identified under the examination OF Assistant District
Attorney Hoxie. several papsrs which offered in
evidence and objected to by Mr.. Tracy, who said
We object the introduction OF this CONTRACT. or
TO any evidence under this Indictment for three reasons
This indictment is toit by the DistriotAttorney
drawn under section IS OF the act OF lsis.
auc particularly the last clause who fhaii
eonspre aud colludo with any Other yeIscn
allegation IN this indictment thlt those officers
UaIIed States This section moa%s that 10 be guilty
OF TINS offence the officer must conspire win
person not officer OF the United states.
There lis no allegation that they consplTei with other
persons. not Officers, DuG they acge that they were all
revenue officers. Therefore we submit thct hs inIci
meDt j. fatally defective. ana no evidence can De gwen
under II.
OF TINS indictment under any Ia" thit exists upon tne
statute book Tue indictment that under the act
made contract under which Sanborn undertook, baV
ing discovered certain claims to assist the olhccfs TO
collect them that after that these three deendats
entered INTO conspiracy oar position - ta " tno
ycry of the contract which they have set up III
their Indictment John ID. Sanborn entitled to TINS
so per cent We say that the moment me conidct was
signed that per cent was his, no matter BY whom
1t might have been collected He hal vested right Ia
1t the moment the contract was signed Ih1h We say
how is IL possible that there could De any con
erBment The law does not contemplate that
sanDorn shoui be known in the os matter,
the 10 be collected by the usual oihcers, as
sisted by SanDOrn. and this share was TO be given 10
him. lie is 20 discover the delinquent Tax,
Treasury. make his contract ana stand ny
aio the proper officers in The collection 49,.
Furthermore the contract Is nOt set ont IN Tue uc
We suppose that it is well settled rc OF plead
ing that where paper Is male tue pasiS OF an m
or COPY Of it must be inserted. There
Il no copy here They MAJ answer thaS they nave ue
say is fatal variance between the contract as
described and the contract as offered T1e CON
should be paid the perccni, g., on what
should be discovered and collected oy
any money shall be collected on the claims discovered
by him. mat share shan be paid 10 MIN therefore we
say that there Is a 'atil variance between thein
REPLY OF Mr.. HDXIE
Ltrict-Attorney uoxic answered substantially fol
lows:
We have stated in this indictment what each OF these
consprators were their Office and duties. Ii was not
necessary that we should have alleged that they
were officers. The conspiracy is the gi.t OF
the ontnse. thing else ID thls lhuctnent
might have been Lett olt, except meaS'r
description OF the persons ana Tue conspiracy cnarSen
because nothing IL better settle" as mater 0l ptddiH
than that where the conspiracy Il to do an unlawful act
only necessary 70 set out tne conspiracy Dut where
the conspiracy Is TO do lawful act by uh-
lawful means. then all the overt acts must BE-
set out THIS conspiracy TO do an uAll~tul act
aud therefore everything else Is entirely supcrlnOu
and II IL has been stated mperecty tbat Iact cannot nc
taken advantage Of and has only been step at inc
defenses might understand our chirges Ihereore no
objection DO Ide that We do not sci Oit ths con
in IN eXten5o, becaute We heei ho' recF 10 1t
There was no fraud conspiracy in the contract itself
me sr n4 oI money when he would have recovered
or assisted the officers OF the Government IN recovering
ot assisting the proper officers and without recovering
,h.s money himself Ia TINS way lie ihisreptesehtea
and made 10 appear to the secretary that hal assisted
the proper officers 30 that he might Obtain this money
nnder this contract. But the gist of this thing Is,
Nv hut simply the administration OF the collection Of
these taxes under the law. Instead OF assisting the
nroper officers instead OF discovering and collecting
himself our complaint Is that lie did nothing at all lie
was 50 per cent only upon the claims that he
srf if-rlr lri1 Il a
Mr. Tracy-Flud that language in tho contract II you
Mr. Hoxie-we have read It In the first place,
there IS the letter OF the Secretary on page ..
Mr. Tracy-That isn't the contract. .
authorized The letter speaks OF the receipt OF
written statement sent by SdnDorn showing the ma
ture of the claims which You propose to assist the
proper officers In recovering and IL says afterward
y6u are hereby employed assist the proper Olcers
of the Government in recovering" &C..
There Is another point. Tue counsel are very much
mater Of Indifference to us which statute take
we nave stated the facts. We do not aege aiy particd
lar 9e'%,n II IS 3ns .r !G me nsy s sfdss
OF 1866 Il IS under some other.
THE POINT ISSUE.
Here Judge Benedic-I5t true that II this contract
gives man right to 50 per cent OF this money without
collecting himself that then the prosecution has failed
-Atorney-That is not the spirit OF the Con-
tract.
Judge Benedict-I want TO see If the whole prosech-
ton is turning this. They the part OF the de,
Tense that YOU charge III your Indictment thaI an
Ie had was "a cOntTnct have % per cent
OF what he collected, and that the contract you
offer in evidence is contract that he should
have 50 per cent OF all that anybody collected and ask
Won whether your prosecution must depend upon tlat
question of yarance understand yol 10 say that inns
re upon the proposition that he could not
under this contract ching unless he himself
collected it. - lido,
Mr. Uoxle-Independent Of the contract we have the
preliminary letter OF the secretary OF the treasury h
ierpretlng the contract in that way. 49,
After some further discussion between exJudge snip
man and Mr. Hoxie Judge benedict a1louraeu Tue una
80 uut to-day at IL ~, when he Will decide tue ques'
flnn