Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-11-30
the FORGED VOUCHER. BUSINESS.

Another Night Session by the United
states Government and E.
F.. Hudsen.
Last nights session of commissioner Con-
gleton's court was devoted mainly to an an
mated debate between the opposing counsel,
the district attorney and the assistant district
attorney on one aide and 8. L. Sphinx assist
ing Mr.. Gamble on the side Of defense. The
case was not concluded last night, but it be-
gins to assume something Of q ludicious as
pect. The forged voucher business is get
ting interesting. The public will remember
that voluminous kilograms were sent to the
newspapers Of the east last spring detailing
the completely Of E. E. Hudson in alleged
extensive forgeries Of vouchers. and setting
forth that Capt. Dougherty and Gen. Ham
mond we're the skilled and faithful detect
ives Of the government who had consumma-
ted the grand discovery scheme which was
to hand down tolasting ignominy the names
of E. E. Hudson and several others. In
the Hudson case the voucher forgeries are
gradually coming to the surface through the
medium Of Judge Congleton's court. The
first "evidencc Of forgery" We made mention
Of in Yesterdays issue. 1t was a case where
in MIR. Hudson had signed the name of
James McGarry to a voucher and procured
the money on the voucher. Mr.. McGarry
came forward and testified that Mr.. Hudson
had full au hority to use his name in that
connection. Last night Capt. Dougherty
presented another batch Of "forged vouch-
ers" in evidence before the curt. There
are twenty-five of them in all, and 10 each
one of them Mr.. Hudson had signed the
name of +. J. Dewitt OF of H. D. Booge &
Co. At the time these vouchers were made
out F. j. Dewitt and H. D. Booge & Co.
were proprietors of the trading store at
Grow Creek and Mr.. Hudson was their
manager. They resided at Yankton and
Sioux City and Mr.. Hudson resided at
Grow Creek and conducted their business
for them. 1t is not at all unreasonable to
suppose that Mr.. Hudson had foil authority
to use the names ofthe gentlemen mention.
ed. Otherwise he could not have acted as
their agent OF that far away post.
1t may appear to the parties engaged in
prosecuting this case that Dull %sympatbies
are with the accused. Such a suspicion
would undoubtedly be correct. We were
appraised some time ago that an effort would
be made to bring Mr.. Hudson to trial on
just such evidence as has been presented,
and this knowledge induced us to take a pc
sition in his defense, which position We
have maintained through the long season of
evil report BY which suspicion has been
brought upon him: 1t is now not only our
duty, but our pleasure, to give the status Of
the case, and If in 80 doing we lean = little
to the side of the accused. it is because We
believe him to be innocent of
The ofFenses charged against him.
We hope, though, that he may be given
\ thorough trial. that the case may be com
ventilated. Nothing but 40 absolute
after the most searching inveeti-
.a,ion, will wipe out the stigma which has
'een placed upon his name and it is not an
IRRESPONSIBLE public demand to urge that
bis be accorded the defendant.