Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-09
the lM,NosroN TRIAL.
THE Opinisns - . Man Whe Does Not
Live In Yaakten.

EF.RN r-- |
Oplmaons 81 . Man Who Does Not
Live In Yaaktsn.
Correspondence Of the Sioux City Journal.
Yankton, d. T.. March 5, lss0.-The case
OF the United States against Henry +. Ltv'
ingston, called the "stumpage" case, has
been on trial in the United States district
court, Judge Shannon presiding, In this city
for ten days. To-day at | o'clock the case
was given to the jury. Up to this time, g
p. M. they have not been beard from, and
it is doubtful what the verdict will be, but
the general opinion is that they will fail to
agree.
This case, Is all the cases ssainst Dr.. L,v.
ingston preceding II have, excites a good
deal Of interest in this town and throughout
Yankton is that the doctor IL entirely guilt
less, aud that If there ever wa an Indian
agent that did his duty honeetly and con-
scientiously, he has don't it. The charged
against him were instigated by General.
Hammond, during his raid on the agencies
above here, and he was seconded and aided
BY Hayt
The "stumpase" case grows out Of the
collection of money for trees or wood sold
TO . contractor from the agency, aud the
alleged payment OF the o to the In
dians. The facts are as they came on trial,
that E. E. Hudson, the Indian trader at
the agency, collected the o from the.
contractor, aud when it was disbursed to
the Indians, DR.. Livingston, instead of 20.
ing to Hudson aud getting the money, took
the Indiana receipt for the money (24S. 25)
and gave them orders on Hudson for the
amount. The receipt, or voucher, was Wit
messed in due form By two employees at the
agency, who were at the agency Office at the
time the Indians camein, and the witnesses
certified that they saw the money paid.
The doctor alec certified at the bottom of
the receipt that he had actually paid the
money. The prosecution claim that the
voucher vas fraudulent because the witnesses
did not zee the money paid. The Indians
four in number, testified that they did not
receive money for their orders, but brass
checks. Hudson ~testi6es that he paid to
the Indians the full amount in currency,
aud then, at their reqest. changed a portion
ofthe amount,givlng them the traders check
therefor, as the chiefs wanted Lin small
denominations, that they could the better
divide the amount among the whole tribe.
The testimony Of Hudson 10 this report Ia
substantially c~orroborated BY the interpret
er, LeClaire, who accompanied the Indians
to the store, and also by collateral circum.
stances.
The prosecution claim that ever were
the full amount paid in lawful money BY
Hudson on the day claimed by the voucher,
that still the agent, Livingston. was guilty
Of making q false. fictitious voucher. ID
that he did not pay the money himself. and
in that the witnesses did nat see the money
paid themselves. The defense claim thai
the payment made by Hudson was q pay
ment made BY Livingston. and asked thu
Judge 80 to charge. but he in effect charged
just what the prosecution claimed.
Had the charge of the judge been il
such shape that there would have been
legal loophole for the jury to base it's de
clsion as to the guilt or innocence of DR.
Livingston on the fact as to whether tn
money was actually paid as claimed by th'
voucher, there is little question but thu
verdict would have been given ere this o
mot guilty." SPECTATOR.