Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1879-12-03

The Court convened at TWO p. H.,
at which time the roor- was about
half filed. Soon after all the lawyers
engaged in the case were in their seats,
Judge Black and Senator Carpenter
having chairs adjoining each other.
Presently F B. Gowen, President of
the Philadelphia and Reading Rail-
road Company, through whose agency
principally the Mollie Mcguire order
in the coal regions was broken up, ap-
peared and ranged himself on the side
of the Commonwealth. Brewster,
Mann, Albright, Armstrong, Cassidy,
Herr, Lamberton and Weiss, for the
Defense, were early in their seats.
About 2:2O p. m. the case against
A. W. Leisinring was called up by
the District Attorney.
General Albright moved to quash
the Indictment on the same grounds
on which that in the Salter case was
set aside by the Court. After a brief
debate the defense proposed to offer
the same evidence submitted on Mon
day to show the illegality of the in
dictment.
The Commonwealth agreed that it
should be submitted for the purpose
of argument as taken down by the
photographer, subject to exceptions.
Mr.. Simonton objected to the re-
ception of testimony for the following
reasons: That it is not competent to
introduce any evidence extrinsc to the
record; that a grand jurors testimony
cannot be admitted to contradict the
record. Mr.. Simonton cited number
of authorities to show that it is error
| to uuash an indictment for matter
that is not in the body, extrinsic mat
ters depending on trial by juries.
Judge Black then proposed to offer
a paper for the consideration of the
Court.
Cassidy objected to it being read
until counsel for the defense had an
opportunity of reading it, but the
Court decided against him, and the
venerable Judge read it with unusual
distinctness, emphasizing the principal
points The following is a copy:
JUDGE BLACKS PAPER.
And now, to-wit, November %,
1879, the District Attorney of the
Commonwealth and other counsel
specially appearing with him in this
case, being in Court, and hearing the
above motion of the defendant to
quash the indictment, ask that the said
motion be refused, and object to all
affidavits, depositions or other proofs
to sustain it, and this opposition to
the said motion is on the following
grounds, tO-wit:
First-The facts asserted by the de.
fendant as reasons for quashing the
Indictment are all of them extrinsic to
the record it is well settled rule oi
the common law, adopted in Pennsyl-
vania by the highest judicial authori-
ties of the State, that facts not appa.
rent in the body of the Indictment or
the caption thereof cannot be produced
in any form of proof to sustain such a
motion as this.
Second-This indictment and all
previous proceedings which lead to il
are conclusively proved by the record
to have been perfectly free from any
defect in form or subtance, for ii
was found by grand jury of twenty
three persons, regularly impaneled and
sworn, duly presented to the Court,
and made part of the record in per-
petua M rel memoriam. The absence
of any averment to the contrary in the
objections which the defendant and his
associates have made is itself an ad-
mission that it is regular
Third-Such a record is sacred, and
cannot be falsi6ed or contradicted by
any extrinsic proof to the Court which
made it up. What allegation of misbe.
havior or negligence committed by the
judge, clerks or grand jurors might be
shown to sustain plea in abatement is
not now question before this Court,
and on that subject we affirm or deny
nothing.
Fourth-To allow the verify of the
record or the effect and force of the in
dictmentt to be called in question by mere
affidavits, not given upon any issue
made up between the parties, would be
a total denial of justice to the Common
wealth, for great criminals can at all
times have their spies and agents Prov
ling about the ante-rooms or corridors to
watch for some irregularity or the omis-
sion of some form, and affidavits can be
got in all cases. Ifthis law, which SOL
emnly declares that regular indictment
cannot be defeated in that way, is now
to be held for naught, these defendants,
whether guilty or not, must go unwhipt
of justice, since there is not even a re-
mote probability that any future indict-
ment can stand against the objections
which their affidavit-makers may find
against it.
Fifth-We make no allegation that
this motion is prompted by motives not
creditable to the counsel by which it is
urged. We speak without personal
application to the defendants them
selves when we say that the success of
this movement upon the Court would
make precedent fatal to public justice.
The integrity of the defendants in max
ing it is not impugned, directly or in
ferentially. We accuse them of moth
ing worse than the perjury, bribery
and corrupt solicitation wherewith they
stand charged in the indictments, and
we only desire to give them fair and
honest trial, upon which they will be
triumphantly acquitted if we do not
| ,,royo bo;r or,;l+ hayon1 q roo Sopa h "a