Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-05
TINE lr,sesyoW CASE.

the LIVINGSTON CASE.
Z one lusao. 81 the Iesslaeay aaa Arsu.
mests-rAe Jary Rsslrss g Csaslaer
Upon . Verdict.
The case Of the United States against
DR.. Livingston was given to the Jury At
one O'clock this afternoon and they retired
to consult upon . verdict. Tue charge
against the defendant is that be presented .
falee claim to the government and backed
1t up with . fictitious voucher. The facts
in the ease are that DR.. Livingston paid
his Indians $e4s.25 stumpaee money and
the action lies in the alleged infornalitv In
the manner Of payment. The court
holds that he should have paid
them either in United States currency or in
a check on an authorised government de.
posltory. As the doctor had not the curren.
cy in his possession and IS there was no
depository available. he adopted the
usual course At all Indian agencles-gave
the Indians . check on the trading store,
where they received their currency, which
was returned. to the trader BY means Of a
check on a United States depository. 1t was
Iaimply a transaction for the convenience Of
the Indians, sand while it might have
been a technical violation of some
of the government rules, it was not in any
sense an effort to defraud the government.
The Indian witnesses all ewore that they re-
ceived their money in brass trading store
checks, the latter being redeemable either
in goods or currency. DR.. Livingston, Hud.
son, Brockman and Leclaire all swore that
the Indians were paid in currency and
that some of them afterwards charged
their larger bills into checks,
the trader, Hudson, not having enough
small bills to satisfy their wants. Richards
also swore that the Indians received cur.
rencv-that he cav it in their possession.
Thus it was q question of veracity between
Indians and white men, and when it is con-
sidered that the Indians have been for two
years under the personal control Of the
enemy of DR.. Livingston, it will not
appear strange that this difference
of opinion exists. But this variance is
only an incident 10 the case. The court
h"lis tina, unless DR.. Livingston paid the
Indians in currency or in checks upon a gov.
ernmen. depository he has been guilty of Q
henious otfense. 1t is this construction of
the law that has made the case a difficult
one to contes'. 1t does not appear to be q
question as to whether or not the defend.
ant has actually defrauded the government.
but whether OF not he departed in the
slightest from the devious wind
ings of government red tapeism In
the performance of his duty. Years
have elapsed since these transact oas occur
red, and in the construction of the case
no allowance has been made for aay for
gettulness Of the details Of this ,ap ordinary.
every day transaction. The most rigorous
requirements are exactcd and all because
It is alleged that q man paid out govern
ment funds one way when he should have
paid them in another way This is Hayt-
ism and H~ammondism exempliied. The
officers Of the government feel that they
must produce at least one result
out Of all the hue and
cry instituted at the instance of a confessed
perjurer and his disgraced associate. Hence
every little technically which could be
seized upon has been logged into the case
and the man whose honor is at stake has
been compelled to place HE back to the wall
and defend himself from every point of at
tack. In the eyes of common sense jus.
tice he has committed no o%ffense, but tech.
nlcalities which are commonly supposed
to be imperative in effect will occa-
sional!y circumvent the best meaning
citizen The charge Of the court
was directly against the defendant.
1t is not very we'll received by those Of the
legal fraternity with whom we have con-
versed. We did not hear it end have not
read it and do not, therefore, feel like going
any deeper into the subject than give a re.
Election Of the sentiment which has been ex-
pressed by others.
The jury retired at one o'clock this after.
noon and at FIVE o'clock had not been heard
from.