New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-30
THE WHISKY CASRe.
Ninth Days Proceediags.

Ninth Days Proceedisss.
Hon. Thomas j. Semmes finished the
closing argument in an hour and half, as
he had promised. His address to the jury
was devoted to an explanation of the facts
presented; expressions that they exculpated
the defendants, and an appeal to the jury.
District Attorney Beckwith, in closing,
claimed that if the prosecution had put in
no evidence, that presented by tho defense
was enough to warrant . verdict of guilty.
1t was claimed that the whisky seized was
not the property of Fehrenbach, yet one of
the first documents presented was the
answer, under oath, to the libel against
him, claiming it as his. To the attacks
on the government Witnesses, by ono
counsel, who denounced them, while he
praised another, who had added per-
jury to his first crime, he said that
was the most horrible part of the
defense. The guilty coadjutors of Fehren-
bach came to the stand and confessed the
truth. They had travelled short way on
the road to perdition, repented, turned and
confessed. For this they were denounced,
while > another who persisted and who
added pe.jury to his crime was esteemed.
OF the argument of another counsel, he
said he had denounced them as worthy of
death. The government and they had
feared it, and it seemed now with reason.
In similar strain he touched ON all the
arguments. Afterward he took up the evi-
dence for the defense and showed its incon-
sistency in its parts. He then detailed the
law, the necessity Congress found for it; its
requirements, though seemingly compi-
Gated, yet simple in the duties imposed
on each separate officer. If they did
their duty, no fraud could be committed.
He showed what the law of conspiracy
required, and that it was different from the
claims Of defendant's counsel. He spoke
till about three O'Clock, reviewing every
point without q note except the report of
the testimony, displaying perfect knowl.
edge of the practice and theory of the
revenue law, an acquaintance with the
chemistry and mechanics of distillation, .
familiarity with the details and readiness
of reference to detail that seemed to sur
prise every one but Mr.. Hunt, who had
complimented him on those qualities the
day before.
Judge Woods said that before reading
his charge he would pass on the point
raised by counsel, that the indictment be-
ing founded on conspiracy to commit q
fraud, which was not made q crime by
statute Of the United States, was barred by
limitation of two years. In his opinion
this was not sound in law. He read United
States Revised Statutes, sections l044 and
l046, and the exceptions. The prosecution
holds that this indictment is not barred,
because the offense is one against the reve-
nue. law, which is only barred in five years.
The defense holds it is not under the reve-
nue. law, but is under the second clause of
section $40, in the chapter on crimes. If it
is not, then the act committed April Z,
1874, is not indictabls by an Indictment
found April g. 1876. The Revised Statutes
are compilation of all the statutes since
l796. In the margin is found . reference to
the statute from which it is COM
piled. In the margin of the section
relied on is found the reference to section
thirty Of the act of March ., 1867, and this
section declares TACT No. IA, page 4s4) in
almost the same words that all offenses
against the revenue laws are barred only
by five years. Therefore, under this Sec
ton, the point made is not correct. 1t
makes no difference under what title the
revision is placed in the Revised Statutes,
for (section 5600) it is declared that the ar
rangement and classification have been
made for convenience. This case is, there
fore, under the revenue laws, and barred
only by five years. The time alleged is i'm
material if it be within five years.
Judge Woods then read his charge to the
Jury, which will be found in the Court
Record.
At its conclusion he reiterated what he
had said that the jury were the sole judges
Of the evidence. 1t Was their duty to take
care that no innocent man was convicted
and that no guilty one escaped. If any
doubt, any reasonable doubt, existed in
regard to any one of the accused, it was
their duty to acquit. If there was no doubt
they must do their duty and convict. The
government should protect all citizens, but
justice must be executed according to law;
it's duty was to see that the revenue was
collected; duty to itself and the people; a
duty to everyone who honestly pays
his taxes; duty to any man engaged in
legitimate business. It was case of great
magnitude, and it was proper for them to
so consider it. With few directions
as to the manner of the verdict,
which should be verbal. he closed, saying
the court would wait for them at any time,
and they might render verdict on Sunday.
Counsel for the defense must have the &C.
cused present to hear it.
Mr.. Semmes suggested they might rem
der q sealed verdict.
Judge Woods ssid in criminal case such
was not the practice.
Mr.. Semmes said it might be done by
agreement of counsel.
District Attorney Beckwith said he might
ask that the accused be confined, but he
would not do 1t. He could not, however,
consent to sealed verdict.
The inrv then rotirad