National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-11-09

virus that passes from thehlgher to the lowcr un
til embraces clorks. includes lobbyists. under
the name Of practitioners in the executive Depart
mens, and that will place the moaning and hOot-
ing owl and the iopplng bat upon the ruined pill
now and to day.to prevent this result this lnfor-
nation has been filed. But there is a direct au-
thority on This point Let me turn to the case OF
Justice Miller, aud is reported In 100 o. s. n. 81
The graysmen @ OF the ofIense here Is the consplr.
engaged. Although by the statnie something more
than the common law deGnliion Of conspiracy Is NO
done 70 effect lie object Of he Conspiracy Il re.
n, nnnnS true tha, the combination Of minds in m IN;
that party who did not join in the previous conspir
overt act ~
But 1t Is immateriai when he Ioins. for what
purpose he Joins, II the conspiracy existed. and be
sufficient, Then follows citation Of section $40
and Then the exposition Of the Court;
Tho conspiracy here described conspiracy to com
mentoned Is amy fraud against the United States"
ernmsnt Of lis lands or other property. since. then
thls section does not mention the revenue or the
conspiracy against the United states and every form
afconspracy to defraud them, Il Is dfilcuty to SEQ
under t. can be said to arise under the revenue laws
by the general law ngeinst all consplraces.
THERE BA PERFECT ANSWER
to the learned, elaborate, aud convulsivo argu.
ment presented by one or two Of the learned gen
| temen on Saturday. The Supreme Court sdOpts
| the IDEA which Your Honor suggested to Judge
Wilson during the discussion of the point That
| Is not the only authority They accumulate.
| They came travelling down to us like the light Of
Serept % souSces' So hold in nv hand an opInion
| found in Woods Reports Vol. 3, In which the
| opinion was delivered by Judge Woods, who is
| States.
Mr.. roiten--what page9
MI. Cook--It commences on page "a, and termi:
States on page 53 Il Will be necessary to refer to
| II presently on another point
oasef
alr cook-rtis entitled the case OF the United
| States vs. Deumel
g,roecpton Of ftaudllenl suits sgnnsi the United
and The receipt ofmoney thereoh by means
| conspiracy TO commence and carry on TO final
Judgment, such suit cannot be punished under section
Is too narrow rpans ofiSe section. Il fse densSness % @
conspiracy TO defrad the United states not smply
In the act, bufto defrand the United states In any
%@, % Ss usd sS ry S Se
section Is too broad to be conned within the narrow
| range sought to be Imposed upon IT,
Sothat this position is perfectly answered. not so
much by my own utternnces by the exposition
ofthe law By the Supreme Court and by one Of its
ably receive due weight from Your Honor. They
| would not with Colonel Ingersoll. lie seems to
ridlcule authorities, although he may make
feeble effort TO read from books. and some incor-
| rectly copied by some one unknown into manu-
script. lie seems 70 consider It sufficient to pre-.
SCd ,emps h2FY II Your But Honor al pesss s'
% se 81 h sssEGs
moral courage TO invoke Your Honor's assistance
that frauds may be petpetrated ad tbitum against
the United States, aud unless they involve q de-
sgnated and specified ofense. the perpetrators
| cannot he SlbipCtpd to punshmput Inv the Inv L
| leave that point with Your Honor In the light of
the decisions to which have referred. But, SO
proposition is advanced. It Is this: That as re-
spects the mail contracts,
EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE
OF expeditions service, and all associated matters
| he acted rs the Second Assistant Postmaster
General, and us an executive officer with discre-
tonery power, and that no matter how exercised,
legally or Illegally, or from what motiYe however
unjust or through what combinations his acts
cannot be regarded rs criminal nor can he be
called upon to respond 70 any criminal proceed;
ing. We are told thnt Minerva sprang full armed
from the ellen brain ofJnpiter; but in whose brain
this conception aud position originated It is i'm
consequences of the construction of law or the
enunoiation ofthe principle involved. There has
been n,rn an attempt to support 4 by single citation
trine. Let me refer to 1t. II Is In Wharton, sec
1911:
To subject the superior officers of Government upon
pfthe state depends, 10 Indictments for misconduct
uS ss SSay pGSs S sa aa
nstrument pf penal provision. This principle applies
such Officers are ciothsdwith discreton,e ''
For that there is no authority given
G tSs M and CLEARLY 70 the dsss Of
'llshed from their ministerial acts Justices Of the
not committed within Tie range Of judicial discretion @
Now mars:
Oppression, rrsud. and corruption. It is a misde.
erSse iaOr Of rs eee 70 abuse nv dscre,iopsry
b9%sr with Which ne 9o,lys + nVfs,es s cs"s ssw
he esiseuee a 1"PGfPpfsh of The nsse may ss inirsi
either rSm the nature Of the from the S,ssn
ofan Illegal exercise Of authority eapsed by ,stake
as 10 the law made in good falth Is hereafter a..
Then there are references given. The following
digest of Criminal Law;"
and ID, Justices OF tho peace, refused licenses TO
keepers Of public houses because they refused 70 vote
| Let me pass to others:
| A, nm accountant in the onice of the Paymaster-
iaSdpIsnS Sns h to MAKE certain entries q
tain large sums OF moRey in his own possession and
70 appropriate the interest such sums to himself
after The time when they ought to have been paid 10
SGy the e5oWn; commit eommied 49, misdemeanor tRex vs.
Aacommissary General Of stores in the West indies
S & nd wih dy6 q suSp p stores on the con
misdemeanor. Rex ys. Jones, 81 State Trials 25l)
THERE ARE MANY OTHER CASES.
So that the very authority produced, when read IN
| CffensO eStuDllSncS lne contrary uODtrlne assumed
on the part of the defense But in this court the
| question may be regarded as settled. On the
| ords of the Criminal Court of tue District of Co
| lumbla stand indictments and convictions and
two trials and ultimate acquittas on the facts of
those cases-The United States VS., The Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States The
| United States VS.. The Commissioner of Customs,
The United States VS.. 4 Clerk, aud other cases in
| which had the honor TO appear for the defend.
ants, with the present Attorney General, with the
iamented Mr.. Carpenter, and with others so that
this position Is perfectly and efeeiually answered.
But ifthis were otherwise 1t would not destroy the
information. 1t would permit Mr.. Brady only to go
forth conquering hero II would leave Brown 1t
| would leave Turner; II would leave French it
/ would leave McDonough. Indeed. so earnest and
almost at times devoted was my Brother Wilson to
4 Mr.. ThomasJ. Brady that would not have been
surprised ifhe had broken out In the words Of the
poet:
| Come rest in this BOSOM my own stri deer;
Though the herd should forsake thee thy home shall
| l know not, care not, ifguilt's In thy heart,
1 know that love thee, whatever thou art,
And should not be surprised if my amiable
dress the court, should take step III advance ia
the earnestness Of his devotion to Mr.. Thomas ].
| Brady, and say:
Oh come rest in this bosom, my own stricken deer.
know VINO not, care not If quilts in thy deeds and thy
But this know, that I, too, love thee whatever thou
| art
In view of the last two positions, what becomes
of the reference TO the grand jury? It's eulogy has
been pronounced in painted words, In glowing die
tion, In earnest sentences But these pOai itions,
advanced before all others on the part OF the de.
fence, enunciate the fact that no human power, no
Investigation q the grand jury can disturb Mr.
| Thomas J. Brady in the magnitude and tranquility
| of his repose Why eulogze the grand Jury on his
| behalf when he stands up before Your Honor and
declares there is hunderbolt forged by the Amer
lean people that dare touch his athletic and pure
| form. Because he was once invested with the
robes OF Assistant General after 1t Is TOO
| late to impeaoh him. II he could have been i'm
| peached, after the wrongdoings have been diEcbV-