, 1874-02-27

| specific date rendered the Indictment dafecGTe
| because II was uncertain to which It rafe1red.. :
An. REID RErIIEs.
j., Mr. Reed took up the last objection. relat,no
TO then and there" They had drawn in;
a'ght upon this objection, and il they had ~
confidence IN the graEer objections ,ho wondered
that they had taken 50 much time to work nj
the fine sight, which hit nothing At ali. He nro
ceeded to read the indictment, showing that th,
date OF the rendering Of the oath was diatinctl1
Stated There Waa no uncastaiuty.. :
.Mr. swott-The authorities say that gram:
nat!cal construction will not anawer.
hr. Heed c1aimed .that there Was no occasion
Tor grammatical !I construction, ~ there Was nc
possibility OF uneo1sainty..- -.-: -. :.
hr. swett-Yea, but the books say IT mm no,
Mr. Reed-The books don't refer to q case il
point. There never Hxs = case Ike this before
ask 1ouF Honor il. you can detect tho sli8htes,
uncertainty7 :: !.
| LEGALLY uHornrlx. - e :; -: ::
Mr Bwett-You don't comprehend my point.
INC authorities declare that it Is legally and
M. Mr. Rsed-You admit you can tell what II
NJ Nj: svettI can guess, but cannot tel posi-
! Mr.. Reed--T statute aaya It shall b. sufi-
cient u the indictment dofnea the. ofYsnse, 40
| that jury can uuderatand it.. Inover heard Of
any other statute. lit is oear to What it. refers,
the Indictment ID sufficient. = :
/ AAAo ot@.sV g 0tkOAA4o3 tIHA IBHl -lpLA Lu8
statute relatng to perjury, to the cncct that
: 1t shall be suflcientto set forth the substance
OF the onenae charged upon the defendant. y
It had been claimed By counsel that this court
onlyin that part which pleased him: >@-'' :
Mr. 6wett-Do you admit that We should bo
bound BY Judge Rogaz's deoision7 ~
-, THE OF TAXING TUE OATH.
Mr. Reods-Noy sir don't, admit it. haven't
come to that yet h proceeded to state the
difference between the second and the first in
dictnents, and submitted whethar lapse OF eix
| days shculd be allowed to defeat this prosecu-
tion., The Charter said % be shall, at thoen Of
every month, etc.," and oftenar 1t required -
He claimed that u reasonable construction OF the
statute would not allow public officer to defeat
It By bis own conduct, and no Court would go
hold. Judge Rogers had d-decided that the stato-
.ment could be rendered "&bout n the lst OF DE-
cembet. It WAS matter Of history that this oath
in question Was made the nearest of any II: the
day specified by law Others rars mada weeks
End months aftarwarda. He claimed. thst the
Ireas9rer's account wss not an account until he
had taken An oath to it. The1aw contemplated
no other account. 3 =.
MI. SWEET said this position might b. admitted
~ correct # it were not true TINT 4 demand
might be made oftencr than once month.
+ Mr. Reed held that the Law imposed dnty
upon the Treasurer without regard to any demand.
It waa continuing duty and il, without any
demand, he made false statement under oath;
he Was Eui1ty pf Pefju5y TIE words :. ettener
counting they simply empowered -tha Usza,27-
t1oller to 60 In ut any time and call for
new statement The law must hare that oen-
struction, or else public officer could defeat it's
operation BY his own neglect or failing. By the.
Law: the Treasurer Was required to swear to the
amount Of money 81 in his handa, ~ and the only
amendment Vas tho insertion OF the word un-
lawfully as applying to the use Of tho money
The indictment did not aSer the unlawful use.
The words t. in his hands =. cpnld MOI be
tortured = into meaning anything else
than that the money Waa.. in his control. The
atatute declared that tin case said statements,
guilty Of viltul and corrupt perjury, Mr.. Gage
.swore directly, with reference to ;" Ill moneys"
in his hands at the time the statement was rem
dered- According to the staruta It would not bs
9Th day of. December the Comptroller inside ! !
demand. The duty Tas continuous, and no de- |
'mand vas required ..-.
. cuAnaR or VENUE. X i: :=~.5-
they should moye for . change Of venue: IN the
easo Of 1r. Gage upon the Indictment for fail
nre to pay over, In. all probability they would
be [e Tea4y IT, to present the motion BY Tuesday.
change Sssaeu as psr
MI. DaxteE-We don't expect there Hu bei
anything loft ot that when: Judge Moore gets /
through with it. We mean to get out ot this
= hlr: Reed-I only wanted to know, SO as to
prepare in ctime. il { 49,! II
:: The Court than took "a receas for ems bouz.7 4
= . !: MR+tpEXTEH. 49, = - q
- At the resssembling OF the Court 1fr. Dexter
began bis Argument for the defense, saying that
he should mainly confne himself to the coutro- i
Yefted points, without touching upon those not |
disputod bg the States Attorney. It wss claimed
tllatlf the construction Of the defense we're suH
tanned, al officer could defeat the Law BY neg |
1ecting 70 make 3 report at the end OF tho |
month. Tha theory WIS false that no construc- i
ton Of the statute could be entertained by which
Mr. Gage conid escape; whereas, it WAS the |
duty OF the Court to give tho accused the
benefit OF = dispute as to construction. Tho
fact nas, that it Was the duty of the Comptroller
not to allow tho end Of month to pass BY With
out demanding report and Il he neglected that
duty, and the Treasurer subsequently volunteered
a report, he could not be held for perjury On
that report. The oath administered By the No
tary Public Eas not the oath required by Law, and
could havo no binding forco upon the Affidavit.
Previous to 1868, the Treasurer bad 40 right to
but it was wholly ignored in tha. indictment.
According to the position msfntaiuad by tho
States Attorney, Mr. Gage: In ,:loaniDg the
money, complied NTH the law, aud yet when hs
committed perjury, Wil1fal. and corrupt sThe
position WAS prepoateruus IT was travestY
npon Justice, and it would bo laughab1e il it.dd
not involve the liberty OF q oitizea. The States
s haa ssseSs asfsa e atsi ss4as
- comprehended by~:a: jury: This
ID ID not OF ebrogats ~ !: the p principles: Of
:onnqn lay. x6ieh 5 nat be !, nicely s,. I'D 70 e.
lie and liberty Of citizen. It wss the duty Of
he States Attorney, in framing 80 indictment,
0 negative every exception and excuse in tho
,ody Of, the law. Mr: Reed had not desc this,
BECAUSE, under the circumstances. it was i'm
possible to do 50. Ho had cana very near il,
nut he had not done It. = c,i. :. u: -, =
AN UNANSWERED QUESTION. ~;
Mr. Dexter asked whether it Was not possible
or: Mr. Gage to haTe done everything charged j
4 the Indictment, and yet be Innocent Of any ]
rine under the 1aw7 ~
The States Attorney declined 10 snswex this
nestion, BY maintaining silence. 80.
ot answer the question consistently with his
osition "a a public prosecution. n this case, ,
ub1ic opinion was ono thing, and the rights Of J
nan pat upon his defense WAS another thing.
there was to be any straiuing Of . statute it Fl
aust to bein fAyor OF tho accused " =. H.: f.
=. WHAT etsrArEMKHr" AKANa. =" ~
Tho Court interrupted counsel BY inquiring bis /
OF the word :statsment," y, cons
lined ia that section Of the statute requiring an