St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1875-03-12

another person. In view of all the facts
! the court was of the opinion that when
| Mr.. Crane entered upon the duties al
his office he was not adapted to dis
charge them either by his knowledge
or experience. He entrusted the duties
tn another. He apparently considered
| the office, as too many were accustomed
To in these days. us il >inecrIre. the Ia
borS of which could he given to his
clerks. the mere machines i'll the office
This embezzlement in the disbursng
account while technically il crime and
manifest so much moral obliguity as il
il were proved that he had appropriated
the deficiency to his own Use.
In the matter of the false entries. the
respondent had doubtless said To him
self will conceal the deficiency i'll the
hope that time will tide over the mat
ter. and he continued il practice which
WAS IL wrong both to the public and the
government. Therefore he should he
punished. The objects of punishment
are two-fold. one being to deter Others
from the commission of IL crime by
warnin" them of the consequences And
inaSmuch iS he could not lawfully sen
tencr the respondent to hard Labor 10y
conSiguing him Ia the States Prison. it
was the sentence of the court that tOr
the crime of enlightenment he should
be imprisoned in the county Jail ut
Windsor in this State for a period OF
one wear and pay Il tine of II 900. and
stand committed till the fine was paid.
For making false entries he should be
imprisoned NJ the same place inr six
months attrI the expiration of the time
of his Imprisonment for embezzlcment
and pay Il fine of II .ODO. He did not
sentence the respondent to imprison-
mcnt in the Jail in this county t"r the
reason he desired the punishment should
he more severe than it would ht To
coniinc him where he could enjoy the
society of his family aud friends during
his imprisonment.
TIE CASE OF EDWARD \. JEwETT.
In the /. :. District Court at Burling-
ton. before Judge >hipman. OF New
York. came the case of Mr.. ,Jcwctt. fol-
lowing that of Mn. Crane. We get the
toll"Wimg report from the Free Press:
In opening the ease. in behalf of the
respondent. Mr.. Chittcndcm said the
east, was ~ intimately connected with
that of |. :. ". \. J. Crane. that the
facts. as appeared in the two eases.
we've identical. but the situation of the
two respondents wa> entirely different
Mr. Crane WAS the Collector of Internal
Revenue appointed for the Third Dis
trict of Vermont. an officer of the | ritcd
States. legally charge. iutru>trd with
aud responsible toI the safe keeping of
public money. Mr. .Irwrrr had no dis
tlict. nor amy particular portion of Il
district placed under his rnmtr"l. lie
Wa never officially authorized to col
beet any tax. In July. Isl. Il driiri'n-
~ having been discovered in the ac-
counts of The office he subsequently
resigned. He went into business in
this city and remained till the ~piimg of
l-1:}. two wears and onr-halt after The.
deficiency hccamc known Ia Crane and
then. and not till then. WIS he charged
10y Nj. Crane with the mi>apprnpIia-
tiun>. \oN We are dr>ir"r> To have
this ease fully and fairly tiird and il
may ~ Well hc thus heard While stand
ing ON II demurrer t" the Indictment.
a1d NO one has Il right /" make amy
one. who las prolitcd 10y this deficiency.
al in other words stolen aud npprn-
priatrd this public money until he is
legally found to have been guilty of
the charge.
The following points. in hIirt. were
then presented 10y Mr. Chittendrn. in
his argument on demurrer to the tw"
indictments. which had been consolidate
ed against the respondent. T.. \. Jcwctt.
The first Indictment returned 10y the
grand jury WAS in three counts. prcdi-
Gated upon the >uh-tIca>uIN act ot I~i6.
and changed the respondent with trlon-
iouSlN cmh"Izling puhlir moneys of the
| nitcd States: FIRST. while. in th, c.i-
pLcitN of IAN officer of the United
States charged 10y the laws Of the uitcd
States with the safe keeping. transfer
and di>hur >cmrut ut the public money.
~ a deputy collector: the >rcond and
Hird setting up that the Respondent
Was Il deputy collector for the third
collection district. and while in actual
chdrGc of such moneys he cmhc//lcd Il
portion. and only differing ~ To the
amount of the alleged cmhclll,mrut.
hut neither aNcrIn- that the respondent
WAS au officer OF the United states
lac second Indictment WAS in tive counts
and WAS prcdicatcd upon the 9-th. SEC
tiuu of the internal revenue act of lists.
hr>c counts all aver in the same
language that the respondent WAS an
officer acting under the authority of the
1cNcnUc laws of the mitrd States. H. Il
deputy collector. F"uI OF The counts
aver I ~ existence nf The honl, of ''rrcold
OF daily receipts in which true entries
at the receipts of all revenue taNe~ col
lcctcd should Ice made. They also aver
Il special instance of the omission to
make proper entry with intent to enable
the collector IL cmhcZLlc certain public
moneys. and the remaining count AYERS
that the respondent WAS cugnizant of
such cmhezllcmrmt on the pant OF the
collector. Neither of these counts con-
tainS avcImrmtS which constitutes crime
against any law al the United States.
That the tii>t Indictment cannot he
sustained unless Il deputy collector of
revenue. who Is not assigned .
To any collection district nor charged .
with the collection of any tax. is held |
to be an officer of the / :. under the
internal revenue laws. The naked aver
ment that the respondent was a deputy !
collector l. not sufficient. He WIS en-
ployed simply us Il clerk in the col |
lcctor'> office and as such possessed no
official power or WAS subjected to any .
official responsibility. and if guilty he .
may he punished for larceny under
State laws like any private citizen.
otherwise there would he under the
statute the singular anomaly of two
different Officers the collector and his
deputy. each changed ut the same mo-
mrnt with the safe keeping. etc.. of
The same Identical money. No portion