, 1877-10-10

United States baA been tlclraudc1 hY the un
lawful removal OF whihkT from the dtstf]|crica
district
The petiton charges that In all these rcr,o7a1s,
the defendant, tn lbc language OF tic stasutcs,
"a!ded anil ahcttet."
TUtach aud all nf these chAfRcA tho defendant
F.rh-If,at he has been Indicted IN this court
convicted. and punished for The same.
Steoad-1hat for these offcuses he has been
psn!oncd " Tue rresftlcnt, ami ezltbln copy
To this nnswer the nfatnttif dcmurs.
Judge Miller, sttttaR en- banc with Judge D,l-
Ion, who concnrTcj, satd:
1ndstern,lnin9 tho snfrclcncy Of both theso d..
fen'es: is nceessary 10 aecetian clearly Tho m.
turc o. The nen.e charged in the irst Indictment
fot which the defendant hs. been punished; Tor. il
he il now prosrenied. sud il ai.o fur tto tams
transactions, our laws fnfbid that ho or anY one
else hall 30 twice punished for tho same erime or
In tic former trial hs was Indicted for = con-
splshcY 70 deftand the Government At the United
stasee ont Of tl.e taxes Due on whisky astted ~
nnco q that consplracy other pastfcs than defend
sns, who were b. eo.eonsp!satoru. did unlawfully
It thus appears that tho whisky was actually re.
ma9},edi ~ kY ts. removal ths Government wss
this aet though 4 was not charged .ha. he person.
ally took pat IN tho net et removal.
IN AHH utcHEHl CA8Gt WH,IE ne II u0E Cuaf2eA WIN
conspiracy BY That nhrue, hs n charged with hld.
lnx and ahetsinE ths Balnc REMOVAL and u con.
rtteh Will u punished for tho snul1 remosst.
We are all Of opinion that his joining tho con-
sptracy, Of which the pun'osd was to rcn7pyc this
whsky. WAS aiding and hhett!nH TIC removal. which
wRe eflsetcd b. MtanA OF lint Conspiracy. i1ow
enn q man moro etetirAIly aid m unlawful act
than By GounsslthG aud hdvl+ing ia execution nnl
giving his influence IT. ta support and sst heAt en-
ergleb OF hiH mind 10 evise Tho kofest An suscst
meant for III accomplishments
II thFec n,tn aKfee 10 compass the Heath Of
another. and onu Ut them puts thrtr tu!nt pnspnfu
iatu effect, TO mol the other tsTB afl nn'1 abel the
mutdeFf And is not such an agreement also a con.
upsracy 10 murder the victim:
We nre, therefore. Of opinion that II the specifc
actA Of removal un which this suit IA brought aYe
tho ansne which were proved In the Indictment, the
formor Judgment and cony!cttun II Il bar 10 Ito
present action; and We ntc alto Ut opinion that the
allegations OF the nnswef nru sufficient nvtrmcnts
that they arn The anne. II the counsel for the
United Slates thlnkH the! nrc not tho same.
take tasne 0r thai pIes and have the tssue trIcd.
Little need be satd ahon tile plea of pardon, be.
cause II thn indictment and sentence OF lic1fcc
were for the same 0cneck. both In law and IN fact.
for which thtn acti1h 10 brought 1t Fs conceded tint
tho pardun 10 also bar to the civil suL II II !s
mol conceded, Wo hive no doubt that It ia 10. As
1t stands In connection with tho aserMcntt OF tho
answe!. NO hold It to be good plea.
Whether IL would he good bAs 10 m notion for
nets not included it that prosecution and OF The tamc
character, sc need not now decide. though have
personally atronP impression that Il would.
The demurrer IL oscssucd.