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

DOSStC<tiy
paper regard tetth omazenaea ana dnraetV and.
fn aay judglaet, such issue could De detrt-
zaeat and q shaBae.-CHAELEs SUMNER
The trial OF John d. Sanborn, supervisor Lucien
Vawley and Deputy Collector Nanderwerken was
begun yesterday afternoon in the United States
Circuit Court, IN Brooklyn. The defendants were
indicted on the charge OF having conspired with
each other 10 defraud the United States out OF
money collected for legacy and succession taxes.
There was great deal ofinterest manifested IN the
case, the court room heing crowded with spec
tatOrs, among whom were many OF the leading
members OF the Bar. The defendants were promptly
on hand at the opening OF the Court and took seats
near their counsel, eX-Judge Shipman anu Benja-
MN F. Tracy District Attorney Fenny, and his
assistant, Mr.. George W. Holle, appeared Tor the
government
Judge Benedict TOOK his seat on the bench about
nallpast twelve O'Clock, and The District Attorney
Immediately moved the case for trial. LII. Tracy
RESPONDED .readyr for the defence, and the work
OF empaneHing jury was thereupon commenced.
This was accomplished with but comparatively
little difficulty Among the interrogatories pro-
posed py counsel for the defence as each person
was called 10 be examined as to his competency to
serve as a Juror one as TO whe ther the person
lad subscribed anything toward defraylng the
EXPENSES or THE PROSECUTION
Of these defendants, and lnvarlaoiy the reply was
in the negative This feature OF the eXalliuatlon
caused some COMMENT Tor the time among the
spectators, but the prosecuting oLcers TOOK no
The following is the Jury empanelled for the
trial -Henry J. Marsh, Edward Thornton, Jonn
Petrle James h. Hart, John A. Hughes William n.
Wilkinson, samuel Hutchinson, ira ". Gre@ory,
Henry Thomas, Edward /" kalpaeiseh, On rlstIan
Schunaun ana Wllnam ). soaring.
The jury being empanehed,
MIR. Tracy said Thar before the District Attorney
began his opening lie would like TO inquire under
what statute the prosecution alleged that this
offence was committed, ana The Indictment was
found. There were Jour different acts under Whlch
an Indictment tor conspiracy could DC found, and
the defence would ike 10 KNOW under which OF
these four this indictment was drawn.
Mr.. Tenney replied the act OF July 20, 1865, Sec
ton 49,
under this indictment, upon THIS statute, the de-
fence would raise question, and II their views
THERE COULD BE NO PROOF GIVEN
under TINS Indictment Counsel said he would
raise the question now, and perhaps no opening Of
Instructions OF the Court, however, to whether
he should proceed or not.
Mr.. Tenney remarked that he had nothing to say
until he had heard nom the other side
Judge Benedict-As understand 1t, the defence
have question TO raise under this statute which
in their view may dispose OF the prosecution. Is
that the question?
Mr.. Tracy-rhat is the question. have an
nOunced already that we snail OBJECT to any evil
dence being given under this Indictment on the
ground that there las been no offence committed
sustained under this statute. We Will discuss
that question now or when proof is onered. II
order to raise the question at once ana thus dis
pose oft. II we are wrong, Of course the opening
viii proceed: II we are right, why ~ must term
nate the prosecution
Judge BENEDICT said he would leave it to the Dis
trict Attorney to determine whether the question
should be discussed now after the opening.
Mr.. Tenney chose to open hfst, and Immediately
began his address, WnIcn occupied more than all
hour.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OPENING ADDRESS.
He said that the DEFENDANTS, Alfred Nanderwer-
ken, Lucien Hawley and John ID. sanDorn, were
arralgned before the jury for trial upon an IN ict
Ment charging them with conspiracy to delraud
means Of lalse and fraudulent Representatives,
made to The Secretary OF the Treasury. Tae charge
was serious one. and the offence, II ted
gYfevous one. II was not necessary for the pros.
ecutlon to show that there mas been a verbal or
written agreement between tne parties but II was
sufficient he proved that there any pecuniary
consideration passing between them, or mat there
were acquaintanceshlps tending TO an accomplish
ment OF conspiracy. Il he proved this, tnen
they must be pronounced guilty. The offence
charged against the accused was enhanced and
emphasized from their being officers OF the govern
Inent, against which they are alleged TO have con-
spired 10 deraud and that they might July I'M
derstand che object and character or these con-
spiraces, the District Attorney gave an extended
statement OF the circumstances surround ding them.
On June 10, 1864, Congress passed act known as
''The Internal Revenue law" Which was spread
upon the sta tute books, and upon the authority Of
which the gatherers we're sent among the
people to collect a revenue BY when the govern
ment would obtain means sufficient TO support
ttseli In carrying on the war IN which the nation
was then engaged. That law, with many modin-
cations still remains, one Oh the provisions OF 1T
being That
THE ESTATES OF PERSONS DYING,
valued at upwards OF $4,000, should pay tax to
the general government at a rate from one to SIX
per cent. This lax was known as the Legacy aud
succession Tax" and 1t renamed force until
July 20, 1870, when 1T was repealed, to go INTO
effect on the LIST OF october OF the same year so
that All estates upon which the taxes should be
paid within these dates escaped the payment OF
any tax. 1t is WIN this period that the Court was
to deal. The District Attorney said the first con-
aae ~ nd ae Of a as BE-
amended ana enlarged contract was made Octo-
Der 80, 1872; still another, relating to income taxes
IRON railroad stocks was maoe March g. 1873.
Sanborn obtained THESE contracts by going to the
secretary OF the Treasury ana saying lie nad list
oil persons or estates from when taxes were due
which he had discovered. He ttne District Attor-
ney) believed that sanDorn could have OBJ
tanned these contracts except by
DECEfvING THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
by false and fraudulent representations. Mr. Ten
nation upon which led to the collection CT taxes
under the Sanbern contract was easily obtdlnable
from the records Of the Surropates OF the yarloos
counties as nearly all OF the taxes were wnat Is
known as succession and legacy taxes. He then
went on to state that vanderwerken, deputy col
lector in the ONCE OF Collector FTeeand, obtained
this information, sent to the parties liable Tor tax
. notice 10 call and make a return and then, when
the parties did CALL instead OF sending list or
schedule OF SUCH taxes 10 the Commissioner OF In
ternai Revenue, the law required, in order that
the latter might fix the amounts, certify to them
and order them collected Vanderwerken himself
Gxed the amounts besides charging sometimes
as nigh as $50 Tor making out papers, ana then
sent the parties topay their taxes at the ONCE OF
Supervisor Hawey The tax usually pald in
the form OF cheeks OF drafts TO the oruer OF the
secretary OF the Treasury, and some time alter the
payment OF the taxes in TINS way the party paying
them would receive receipt, stating that the
money Bad been received by John d. oanDorn. and
yet he aad never been seen heard OF ia the
whole transaction. Vanderwerken had managed
the whole business and the TAX was paid at Haw-
lcy's office. BY means OF TINS way OF dong BUSH
Sanborn received fifty per cent Of the money
while, II the taxes mad been assessed and paid as
they should nave been. the government would have
received the whole amount. Mr.. Tenney COM
mented severely upon the course OF DEFENDANTS,
Iector NauderwerSen as beng
PAID SALARIES TO DEFEAUD THE GOVERNMENT
that IL, as salarled officers they aided Ia the rob-
berry instead OF the protection OF the country. In
conclusion Mr.. lenney addressed the iury az fol-