The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-31

itlsf A. The first paper Is a statement dated
70 M ~ se 10 non
| by John ID. Sanborn; then follows q list OF names
! =. Are there any other papers A. Then follows
! another list OF names; then follows a paper set
| ting forth that John ID. Sanborn OF the city OF
| Mr. Hoxie-Ir Is admitted that the signatures to
| these papers OF John ID. Sanborn and Whiiam "A.
Mr. Tracey-And are the signatures OF the
| fenoant sanborn and the secretary OF the Treas
Mr. Hoxie-f wll state what they are. will
state TO the Court that we alege in our indictment
that Mr.. SanbOrn had contract with the secretary
oil the Treasury to collect certain claims, wnlch we
specify as beng upon certain list. wnich was re-
Der 3, 1872. the first contract, as we ailege was
dated August ls, 1872, and was based upon
"' STATEMENT UNDER OATH,
| made to the Secretary OF the Treasury, that he
Nir. saaooIn proposed to discover and collect the
born together with q List OF claims which he pro-
posed to collect under the first contract. hold in
my hand, and II has been identified by the witness.
| propose to offer this statement in evi-
dence as basis OF the nrst contract
which We alege in the indictment / propose.
then, to offer the first contract and the letter OF
the Secretary OF the Treasury to Mr. Sanborn, en-
ployng him 10 assist officers OF the government.
Then propose to Offer the statement dated Ocro-
Der %, and ldentlhed, which contains the list OF
names referred to in this indictment; and then the
amended contract based upon that list. All these
drafts have been Identified by the witness. The
genuineness OF them u admitted. offer them Ia
evidence.
Ex-Judge shipman-I would like the District At.
torney to state under what count he Offers them.
MI HoXic-Cnder both
Ex-Judge Shipman-
THE Trouble IS
that the indictment don't set orth the contract.
Mr. Tracy then objected TO The evidence under
either count OF the indictment, and addressed tie
Court al considerable length in support OF has objec
tion lie held in the first place, that. from the facts
which the DISTRICT Attorney had pleaded and put
possible under the Indictment IL was not posi-
Die lor any three men, or two men, or any NUMBER
pose OF cheating ana defrauding the government
out OF the nifty per centum winch, Is was provided
ne sReaa Pc ae PrS9pe sa 5
credit OF the secretary OF the treasury. Counsel
contended further that
THE INDICTMENT WAS FATALLY DEFECTIVE
| because IL did not set out the contract and
schedules, and thae-Lae evidence was inadmissble
| contract in the Indictment and the contract
! offered III evidence
| MIR. Hoxie replied saying that the indictment
| had been drawn specifically as ii was possible
! for It TO be drawn. The conspiracy was The gst
| OF the offence and they had made the Indictment
shown the means by when Inc government had
| been deirauded, and they had gwen The defence
full bin or particulars, embracing the points upon
! wncn the prosecution relied AS lar as TO what
law the defendants were indicted under 1t was
! EoXie continued speaking at some length in
oppos.tlon TO the objection to the de ence, and
said that tue defence was simply arguing upon
QUIBBLE LAW.
Mr.. Tracy replied to MIR. Hoxie reiterating his ar
guulent Tor tue exclusion OIL the papers. Inc law,
he said, does not contemplate that there Is tnird
party between the government and taxpayer.
must thetaXes be collected and the whole theory
OF tue contract and the prosecution rests upon
false construction. He (Mr. Tracy mas nothing to
say concerning the law, OF TO arra!gn Congress for
constructing the law, nor The secretary OF the
Treasury Tor making the contract in pursuance
! thereof. Mr.. Sanborn had already discovered the
moneys due before his contract was made and 1t
! would have been an absurdity for him to go TO the
taxpayer and demand money due to the United
duty-colected the moneys so due, every cent Of
wnlcn went into the Treasury, as 1t Is even
united by the District Attorney
THIS ABSURD PROSECUTION
has gone far enough.
spiracy 10 delraud the government by false repre-
sensations, which means were the contract, tue
schedule &c. They do not assai the latter but the
manner in which 1t was executed
The Court asked M; 1enney ii this question Of
variance, whether Sanborn under the contract had
any right to fifty per OF 1t, OF any money
whatever, even he did not collect it, THIS ques-
ton of variance materially affects the case OF TIE
Mr. Tenney said that they took the position that
Sanborn did not assist collect single dollar OUT
of the twenty-iour estates. When he says that he
did so discover and collect the taxes, ne says what
Ex-Judge shipman called attention to the first
and sixth clauses OF he contract, and held that
the contract does not contemplate that the taxes
We're TO DE discovered aiterward. 1t provides that
these particular taxes when paid over, should be
given TO Sanborn; that II TINS is the condition of
the contract IL Is indispensable that II should be
set out at length in the Indictment. That docu.
ment alleges o conspiracy to defraud the United
states government IN collecting the taxes Of
twenty-three persons, out OF hundred or more,
without specifying any names or the nature OF the
taxes.
THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CONTRACT
is TO show whether there has been conspiracy or
not. Every SUCH paper should be set in he
Indictment, either in construction or as whole.
Alter further discussion by Mr.. HoXe, holding
thai the secretary OF the Treasury acted in good
iaith when the contract was made, but that SAN
born represented falsely as 10 his discovering ard
collecting tne taxes, he said that the prosecution
would show and prove that he did neither dis
cover nor collect them.
landed Just where he thought they would; that.
Sanborn had by fraudulent representations i'm
posed upon the secretary. There Is not one word
IN the Indictment inconsistent with the terms OF
the contract.
Pending the discussion the Court, at haf-past
four z. NJ, adjourned Until twelve O'Clock to-day.
The counsel Tor tue defence asked eacn OF tie
Jurors, prior TO beng sworn, whether he had beel
called upon to subscribe towards delraying the ex-
penses CT the present trial This interrogation was
prompted by the following subscription paper,
whlcn has been circulated IN this CITY and Brooklyn.
The following paper had been circulated during the
past week among merchants Ia this city,
Whereas, proceedings been instituted by Mr. A. w.
Tenney United states District Attorney the Eastern
prosecuting persons who alleged to have been
connected with an alleged conspiracy to defraui the
public under contracts made with The government
t Known az the sanborn contracts; and whereas
an array OF eminent counsel; and, whereas believe
that Il Is quite too much labor 20 impose upon any
Now; therefore. apprecatiug the brave aud noble
In which Mr. Tenney Is engaged and being DESTROYS TO
a. he may deem desiraole, we hereby pledge said
to 5e 6a to the order said fenney
DATED MARCH q, 1874
The individual who circulated the above informed
merchants TO whom he presented 1t That Mr.. Ten
ney knew OF It's preparation and circulation.
paper regard nth amdzeDsent ana anLsety, ana