The New York herald., 1875-10-21
THE CLAFIN 4 90. INDICTMENTS.

With this testimony counsel or the paihtiH rested
and the further hearing was adjourned until eleven A.
NJ tomorrow.
THE CLAFLIN L co. INDICTMENTS.
The motion TO quash the indictments against the hrm
OF Il B. Ciann Co. came up yesterday before Judge
Benedict. in the United States Circuit Court Mr..
William NJ Evarts appeared for the defendants and
Assistant United States District Attorney Foster for the
government Fhe indictment found at the October
term, emitting the name or Mr. Donaldson was chosen
the test Mr.. Rvars stating that he should make the
same objections 10 the other three.
Mr. Evarts said that the indictment contained four
counts the first three Of which open the same
legal criticism while the fourth bad for additional
reasons. In the first count the defendants were
charged with fraudulenty receiving and conceang
six cases OF silks, valued AZ S3O,OOO, contrary
70 law, &c. The second charged them with facltatng
the transportation Of the goods, and the tnru iacl
tang their sale, but giving of the facts const-
tuting the crime The fourth count more general
and charged them with fraudulently buying and seng
the goods IL was supposed that the Indictment was
drawn either under section Of the act OF July II
1866 Statutes At Large or section O Of the hevised
Statutes probably the latter the phraseoogy oil the
Indictment followed 10 very closely, both OF which
defined the cFirninay attaching TO the dealing IN
smuggled goods The possession Of such goods was
sucIent for conviction unless satisfactorily explained
This well known firm was brought criminally before
the courts accusation falling TO particularIzc
any crime None OF the counts gave pronl OF any
act fact or agency In any crimlnahtys ex-
cept that which named these being
culpable in a respect which otherwise was not named
No marks Of the Importation ship, consignor or con-
slgnee we're given. No description OF the goods was
given, no named as the smugger or as connected
with the illegal importation of the goods The mere
imputation was made. Reference made 10 six
cases OF goods who're hundreds OF such entries would
be found on the books Of the firm Six Of goods
where 500 were received and delivered each day A
TO be tried for the crime could justly demand to
know all the attending circumstances and prepare de-
fence The crninalty in the statutes named referred
wholly to smugged goods not such as passed through
the Custom House, al an Observation-Disclosures
entered in evasion Of the Custom House. Other
statutes covered the other particular. This
was the section under which the defendants
indicted-for dealing in smuggled goods.
The Jurors must have had evideRce OF smuggling by
some smuggler at date and Of some describable
goods, they had right 70 bring the indictments,
and, II they had the defendants had right to the in
were made culpabeS The defendants not charged
with smuggling but OF having the goods after they had
been placed in the market Dealings in the market
the goods had passed the Custom House certainly
could not constitute crime The firm bought and sold
$50 600 900 worth of goods yearly, millions of dollars
mand when and where FIRST occurred the crime for
which they as dealers in the market were now held
culpable.
Mr. Evarts quoted number of legal authori-
ties in the matter, reading from section 10,
act OF 1912, Statutes at Large section 1855
son in the case OF the United States Moulton
(Blatchford 5, p 42Sl also referred to, where
motion TO quash granted Section of the Moety
act referred 10 as giving the statutory definition
Of smuggling The decision Of Judge Hall IN the case
of the United States David II. Thomas benedict A.
count in the Indictment The argument will be con-
tlAQed this morning.