The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1875-09-16
THE RELEASE OF BRANDT.

Isaac Brandt, ex Deputy State
Treasurer, whose conviction Of the
crime of embeZzlement created so
much Interest few weeks since, is
lik ly to escape any punishment for
that offense. twill be recollected
that sentence was suspended, because
an appeal which involved the legality
Of the conviction, had been taken t.
The Supreme Court. This appeal
was argued at the last term Of the
court, and the Judges, probably in
view of the interest felt in the case,
have departed from their usual Gus
tom SO far to announce their decis.
sion without awaiting another term.
Three Of the judges concur in holding
that ma, erial errors we're committed,
and one, Mr.. Beck, takes contrary
view. The opinions are too lengthy
for our columns while burdened Is at
present, but We give elsewhere con-
else statement of the action of the
court. derived from Judge Cole, and
which we may assume is as accurate
as so brief a synopsis could be made.
This decision, it is claimed, sets
Brandt at liberty, as another indict-
ment cannot be found within the time
limited by law.
The people of Iowa will not be
pleased with this outcome Of the
Brandt prosecution. They know that
the law was violated, and have been
anxious to see an example made Of
speculating officials. But the case
presented to the appellate court is
not SO clear of doubt as to Justify
clamorous denunciation. One point
treated a. fatal was an alleged error
in drawing the Jurors. The law re.
quires the County Auditor, or his dep
uty, to copy from the list in his pos
session, on separate ballots,the names
OF persons who have not previously
served as jurors during the year; and
the said clerk, or his deputy, "and
The sheriff. are required to compare
the lists Of jurors aad the ballots. In
this case the Sheriff was not present
when the comparison of ballots andju
ry list took place. bu, a aeputy sher-
irassumed to discharge the duty
This would have been we'll enough
there had been no statute forbi bidding
such action on the part Of the deputy.
Sec. SCI Of the Code reads as follows:
"ln the absence or disability of the
principal, the deputy shall perform
the duties of his principal pertaining
to his office; but when any officer is
required to act IN conjunction acith or
in the place of another officer, his
deputy cannot supply his place"
The comparing of Jury ballots and
lists is duty which the "sheriff'' is
required to perform 'in conjunction
with" another officer" and the law
provides that in such case "the dep.
uty can,,ot supply his place" Is
this imperative? Three judges say
it is. Judge Beck holds that it is not,
on the ground that it is not pretend
ed that the jury was constituted dif.
feren,ly from what it would have
been if the sheriff had been present.
But the maj arity of the court hold
that the deputy had no more righ. to
take part in handling those jury bal
lots than any other citizen would
have had, if present. That seems to
be sound, and if so, i, would have
been equally legal if the clerk had
performed the duty alone, while the
law contemplates that an officer of
the dignity and responsibility Of the
sheriff shall be present to see that the
work is done properly ;that the make
up of the jury is not tampered with;
and that two officers shall act togeth-
er as a check upon each other.
Would it do to settle the rule of
law, according to Judge Beck, that
one competent officer will answer,
where the statute expressly requires
t,co, and in matter SO directly con-
uected with the life and liberty Of
persons charged with crime, as the
drawing of jurors. The court of
highest resort is settling this ques-
tion for the future, rs to all juries. and
not merely dealing with the isolated
case of Isaac Brandt. If the effect
of the decision was not to liberate
Brandt-if he could still be indicted
and tried-would there be any doubt
as to the justice and proprie;y of the
determination given to this legal
problem? We confess that we should
like to quarrel with the decision of
the court, but do not see how to do
it.
Another question determined favor
ably to the defendant, related t. the
sufficiency of the indictment. This
point is considerably involved, and we
cannot go into it to-day. The cour,
holds that The Indictment was suf6-
cient in not stating to whom loans
were made-how he converted the
money to his own use, the crime not
being set forth with reasonable Ger.
tainty,-and further, not alleging tina,
the money was "unaccounted for. D
The section under which Brandt was
indicted read as follows.
"If any officer within the State
charged with the collection, safe
keeping, transfer or disbursement oi
public money, unlawfully convert to
his own use in any way whatever, OF
use by way of investment in any kind
of property, or loan without the sn-
thority of law,any portion of the pub
lie money entrusted to him for collec-
ton, safe-keeping, transfer or dis
bursement, every such act is an EN-.