The New York herald., 1876-02-25

racv alleged I'M The indIctmen-or il must be under
stood that under the established rules OF law the
various acts declarations OF other than the
defendant evidence to show that he was one or
the conspirators for mans connection with con-
spracy legally established by what others did In
his absence and without his knowledge aad concur
renee You will also remember, gentlemen OF the
800 CONFESSED coNsPrRAroRs
in st. Louis testified that they frequently warned
Of proposed visits Of agents Of the service TO
investigate frauds in this district Hence one Of the
essepa inquiries in this is 10 the sources OF the
information thus given The letters or Hogo 10 Bing
ham show that early in 1874 n not previously, he
(Hoge) had been corrupted and working persist
emily in aid OF the conspirators by conveying the
information essential to the success OF these
fraudulent schemes Bingham had his distlleries in
Indiana and one here, and Information, gwen to
HIM by Hoge was sent TO Barton, Binghams supern-
tendent in St Louis, aud by that superintendent
promptly communicated to the other conspirAors in
this city. II appears that Hoge was In ST. Louis
that year, his name being omitted from the
hotel register until he left About that time the con-
sprators here paid him as brbe the sum OF $4,000
and his letters indicate that he worked for long pc
Rod and down to the seizure IN St. Louis In the inter-
OF the consprators The telegraphic dispatches
TO and from Avery, who was part of the time chief
clerk in the Treasury Department and part OF the time
chief clerk OF the Internal Revenue Bureau at Wash
ington, are also before you, and also the frequent
visits Mcdonald and Joyce TO that city at times when
arrivals at ST. Louis by revenue agents were appre
hended These significant facts Il is for you TO weigh
in order TO determine whence the needed warnings to
the conspirators The prosecution contends that
the defendant gave from Washington the Information
needed cOnspirators here, aided IN prevent
ing the visit here which the conspirators anxious
to avoid The defendant contends, on the other hand,
that Hoge furnished
THE NEEDED WARNINGS,
and perhaps Avery also; that the defendant did not
know OF the existence of the conspiracy and gave
knowingly aid tbereto that the conspirators had
fulsource OF information through Avery and Hoge
they had adequate motive in seeking his assistance
as member Of the conspiracy or IN permitting him TO
know Of their fraudulent schemes that Brashear and
Hoge, two OF the revenue agents sent here, were
bribed by the conspiraors remains uncontradicted
The facilities which Hoge enjoyed for learning the plans
of the authorities at Washington for the de-
lection of frauds the West Rogers, BROOKS and
Douglass show and how he used these facilities for the
benefit OF the consprators his letters Indicate In the
light of such testimony the jury should examine the
alleged connection OF the defendant with the conspr-
acy here and weigh his acts conduct and declarations,
oral and written 1t not much from isolated facts
and circumstances from all of them taken together
and weighed, that right conclusion can be reached
Ii may often happen that many acts or groups
of taken separately will fail TO establish the exist
cnce or nature Of general plan, when all OF them c9A
sdered together a careful and painsaking way VIII
show that there was general and common plan, and
disclose the nature and scope thereof Some Of the
witnesses on the part Of the government on material
and disputed points, confessed members OF the
conspiracy and under indictment therefor Such con-
nection with the offence makes them accomplices and
it thus becomes necessary that the Court should state
TO the jury the law touching the testimony OF such
witnesses. The rule of law Is that accomplices are
competent witnesses; that means that the parties have
right have them sworn. IL also implies that when
sworn you shall consider their testimony They are
competent witnesses under the legislation of Congress-
they may be compelled TO testify The testimony OF
conspirators always be received with extreme
ton and weighed and scrutnized with great care by
the jury who should not rely upon II unsupported,
unless IL produces in their mind the fullest and most
positive conviction Of its truth. II is just and proper
In such cases for the jury to seek for cerroooratng
facts in material respects 1t Just and proper to do
IT, but II is not absolutely necessary provided the tes-
tmony Of the accompces produces in the mind OF the
jury full and undoubting conviction OF It's truth. To
the jury exclusively belongs the duty OF weighing the
evidence and determining the credibty Of witnesses
With that the Court has absolutely nothing 10 do The
degree of credit due witness should DO determined by
his character aud conduct; by his manner upon the
stand his relations the controversy and to the par
ties his hopes and fears his bias impartalty the
reasonableness otherwise of the statements he
makes; the strength or weakness OF his recollection,
viewed in the light Of all the other testimony facts and
circumstances in the case II any OF the witnesses
shown knowingly 10 have testified falsely on this trial
at liberty to reject the whole of their tes-
timony on the trial OF this case. The de-
fendant has produced an impressive array of
witnesses of the highest character who have testified
to his previous uniform and general good reputation
man OF unquestioned integrity This Is competent
this respect is fact to be weighed and considered by
the jury, in the light OF which they should view all the
evidence and determine the question OF his innocence
or guilt of the charged against him in the indct-
ment The above IS
THE SETTLED RULE OF THE LAW
in all criminal cases, as we'll those In which direct
and positive evidence is relied asthose in which
the proof circumstantial Hut N cases OF the latter
scope than where the proof Of the offence is
positive and direct In the language OF an eminent
/ made out that character can make them doubtful,
but there may be others in which evidence given
against person without character would amount 70
conviction in which high character would produce
reasonable doubt; nay, in which character will out
weigh evidence which might otherwise appear con, :
character fact 1T and proper like all the other facts
in the case be weighed and estimated by the jury,
who when forming their conclusions upon the various
and circumstances relied on against the defendant,
will inquire and determine whether person whose
character such the defendants has been proved
To be Nv
has not committed the particular crime Tor which
he is called upon to answer In cases depending on
circnmstantil evidence certain rules of law have
long been settled which II Us essential that you should
understand and apply. We adopt as correct expos-
ton of the law this subject the opinion OF the
Court OF Appeals of New York. FIRST the hypothesis
OF delinquency guilt of the offence charged in the
Indictment should flow naturally from the facts
proved and be consistent with them all second, the
evidence must be such to exclude every reasonable
hypothesis but that Of his guilt OF the offence imputed
TO him, in other words the facts proved must all be
consistent with and point TO his guilt not only but they
must be inconsistent with his innocence. II the evi-
be reconciled with the theory OF innocence
OF guilt the law requires the jury give the accused
the benefit OF the doubt and to adopt the former The
burden of proof does not shift in criminal cases II is
on the prosecution throughout TO establish the de-
iendants guilt by the evidence, and in criminal cases
the defendant not being permitted to testify cannot be
called upon to explain or produce any proof
until the prosecution by the evidence IL actually
produces establishes the defendants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt The defendant by the policy OF our
law cannot be compelled nor permitted to testify As
substitute for this deprivation the law clothes the de-
fendant with presumption OF innocence, which at
tends and protects him until it is by testi
mony which proves his guilt beyond q reasonable
doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" which means
that the evidence Of his guilt charged must be clear
positive and abiding, fully satisfying the minds and
conscences of tho jury 1t is not sufficient in crmi-
mai case 10 Justify verdict Of guilty when there may
be strong suspicious even strong probabilities of
guilt, nor, in civil cases, preponder-
ance OF evidence in favor Of the truth OF
the charge against the defendant; but what the law
requires is proof by legal and credible evidence OF
such anature that, when u Is an considered by tho
Jury giving 70 h its natural effect they feel when
they have weighed and considered II all, clear,
doubling and entirely satisfactory conviction OF the
defendant's guilt This aud TIL only is required If
thus proved the jury should convict but not they
should acquit
PRKuDTcEs cLAMoRs.
We trust gentlemen, that It is unnecessary TO re-
mind you that neither partisan feelings nor outside
views should have the slightest influence upon your
minds as jurors. In every free government II not
only the right but the duty OF every citizen
10 firm and exnress- ON all snitahIe occasions