Helena weekly herald. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1867-1900, 1874-12-24
GRAND JURY REPORT.


Court of IT,, Third Judicial District, in and
for said county:
We. the Grand Jurors, duly empowered
and sworn. would respectfully report to this
Honorable Court, that in the discharge of our
duties we have visited st. Johns hospital,
conducted by the Sisters of Charity, and who
have charge and care Of the county poor and
INDECENT, and find the hospital buildings
throughout neat, clean, well taken care Of,
ana every possible attention shown the pa
ticEiS. the food -omi. wholesome and >ufii-
cicnt
The Grand Jurors would also report! that
they have carefully considered all a,tainahlc
evidence in reference To the recent fragrant
forgery and transposition ot the election re-
turns Of Mcasicr county. III reference to the
removal OF the Capital. Our purpose has
been to discover, if possible, the guilty par
ties. and to acquit of any unjust suspicious
those who were innocent In the discharge
of this duty we have sent for persons and
papers. Among others, the COuaty Commits
sioncrs. Probate Judge, and Recorder Of
Meagher county, and also Mr.. James +. Cal
laway, the Secretary of the Territory. with
the forged return, which is now in our pos
session. We have subjected this purported
return to the careful scrutiny of experts and
others, including the officers of Meaghcr
county, who drew up and signed the original
4 ouI
ion of all officers, experts and witnesses is,
that it is a glaring and palpable forgery in
every particular. In this opinion. we, the
Grand Jury, unanimously agree. COM
from Meaghcr county known to bc genuine,
tand which we have in cur possession re.
veal such gross DISCREPANCIES that it requires
no expert to detect them. What purports to
be the county seal Of Mcagher county, and
the seal Of the Probate Court Of Mcagher
county, cannot be called even respectable
limitations. The handwriting in the body of
the return purpor,ing to he that of Mr..
Collins, the Clerk of Mcasher county, and
the signatures thereto of Mr.. Marks, Mr..
Cooney and Mr.. Stewart, County Commits
sioncrs Of Mcagher county, and Mr.. Murray,
Probate Judge Of Meaghcr county, do not,
upon Il close examination and comparison,
bear any resemblance TO the chirography of
either of those gentlemen.
1t being already established that both the
seals and the handwriting of the return were
f,,r jaln ~ FnI
ing conclusions, to-wit:
First. Such forged return did not cmanatc
from the Office oi the County Clerk of Meagh-
cr county. rs in that case the genuine seals
there would have been no necessity for any
forgery whatever.
Second. As the genuine returns did not
remain in Helena exceeding thirty-six hours,
and were then in the hands of prominent and
Jealous advocates of the removal of the Cap
itol from Virginia City to Helena, for the pur-
pose Of inspection before forwarding to the
Secretary of the Territory, we find that no
sufficient time elspses for the mandatory OF
such forged seals in the county. AS our in
ycstigations were particularly directed to
crimes and offenscs committed in this county,
after thorough examination we find no cvi-
dcnce whatever that the crime alluded to
was committed in this county, but, on the
contrary, have the most positive evidence
that it was not. Neither can we reasonably
presume motive for the preparation of
such crime by gentlemen v hO were greatly
interested in the prevention thereof and are
now seeking the exposure of its perpetrators.
Third. We further find by the evidence
that the genuine returns from Meagher county
showing a majority of 532 in favor of ''Cspi-
tai Law Approved" was forwarded by ex
press from Helena 10 Secretary Galloway, ut
virginia City, on the 14th day of August.
1874. We also find that after the returns OF
different counties reached Virginia City, they
were not placed under lock and key for safe
keeping, or in any safe, but were lcft ex-
uosod for about fifteen days upon the shelves
Of the express Office that during portion OF
this time, Mr.. Howell, the express agent was
absent from the Office and no responsible
person left in charge thereof, therby givsos
simple opportunity for the perpetration OF inc
foreery. and We have do doubt from INC
evidence, that the forgery was perpe'la'c"
during this period.
In conclusion, we can easily form con-
lecture as to oil the parties guilty OF this 1or-
cerv. The following circumsta ances' how
ever, are full of grave s'Hn'nca"ce' " "0>
conclusive of guilt.