Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-11-04

or have had any doubt in mymind as to what your
honors Judgment will be, but for the purpose of
suggesting to you the views which we entertain as
| to what course should be pursued.
Having taken up his line OF argument, he said
| that he would now consider the question as to the
right of the prosecution to file an information, and
pursued and whether the present information is
correct In form. He said that, Gas to pro-
mon law there were two kinds of informations,
one filed by the Attorney General OF his own mo-
ton as an ex ofcio information, and one filed by
the crown crown prosecutor in the relation
alleged crime, criminal informa'' N. .
by Mt WilsoS who thought the position Of the
defense was misunderstood.
Mr., Mr.. Wilson said:-I desire to correct my
thought I stated it yesterday so that the court
Iuliy understood iD that the class OF cases OF
which the gentleman is now speaking, informa-
tionS filed by the Attorney General, upon his own
motion, or his own discretion, or his own respon-
sibiity, said that that could not be done in this
| country, because the Constitution says that no
man can be arrested except upon an oath or
affirmation showing probable cause; and that that
excludes G that form OF proceeding which prevailed
Nj MIR. gliss:-1 90 not see that that makes
any any difference TER upon that subject He assumes
which can be fled here is not the
right which the Attorney General had, to file an
ex-of1icio information for a msdemeanor, but an
Information to be filed on the Information OF
Dody else, who deems himself affected by it Go
not care to argue upon that question as to which
kind OF Information that is done under this gov
ernment apprehend your honor will have no
dffcu1ty in arriving at the concluSi on that in a
proceeding like this, where there comes here an
oilcerOf the government, acting on behalf OF the
government; representing directly and specially
the Attorney General, and where the ofrense is an
onense against the government; where there can
| De no private prosecutor, no informer, no one by
whom 1T could be done: where it is in that
| way, fr'an the very nature OF the case, 1t
corresponds to the information which the Attorney
/ IL
tation which is placed upon that power is the linn
itatlon which necessarily end inferentially arises
| In The fourth amendment to the Constitution in
reference to an oath. There is no other limitation
placed upon the Attorney General to file an in
the constitution: one that it cannot be done for
capital or infamous crime; the other that no per
son snail be held to answer, except upon motion
| to show probable cause. The rule Is that the
Attorney General can file an information at the
kings suit, but under the Constitution OF the
! United States he cannot file it for an Infamous
| IL Tor crimes which we could not, probably, but
certainly could file it without oath, which can
A recess was here taken.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
When the court reassembled at quarter to one
o'clock the proceedings in the star route were
temporarily suspended for the purpose Of receiving
the report of the grand jury This formality over,
length to show that an officer representing the
government stood in different relation as pros
ecntor h than private person going before the grand
was affected If this information was well founded
In In fact Ct He % could say that, in point Of fact,
of New York, it had become practice OF the Dis
trct Attorney to file an information without even
an oath. He did not know whether it was intended
to raise the question that the defence had no pre-
V1OllS notice or the intention to the counsel. Mr.
TOtten having answered this In the negative, Mr.
Bliss did not 60 further into the question The
extraordinary position, he said, was taken that
Mr.. Brady having had some discretion to exercise
and having exercised it corruptly, that he could
by Indictment, much less by information, and, as
he could not be proceeded against the
vds Including Others as well as
ordinary to him that these gentlemen should say
we are not liable to grand jury inquest, we are
now impeachment amounts to nothing. Any
officer Of the government could then, after the
most corrupt practices, only resign. He referred
the impeachment plan. Referring to the Tweed
case, he said it was not alleged in the 1ndict-
%sat ags h that of the
and laughed because they did not aHege in the in
formation that any of the money went into Gen.
spect for writer when he put his writings in calf
bound volumes than when he put them into
newspaper; but he expressed faith in the writer's
except two or three in the District OF Columbia"
They ask the court to adopt that principle in
Brady's case that protects man because he wears
the er,nine. He made here severe arraignrnent
OF Gen. Brady, who, he said, being entrusted with
discretion by the government, did not exercise that
but was using it for the good OF few, by squeez,
ing this man out and putting that man In, and
squeezing this contractor or that to pay contri-
button Perhaps, he urged, before the defence
finish this case they will seek to avail themselves
OF the principle which they laid down yesterday,
such prosecution or exemption.
Quoting from section $40 in reference to the
crime, OF conspiracy, he held that the inforIna-
nj "a
He asked II the United States could not say
that a conspiracy against them was crime, with
spiracy was He dweIt at considerable length unon
the laws touching upon conspiracy, citing many
authorities: By any mode in which the United
States Is defrauded, the parties which enter into
the design or conspiracy to perpetrate the fraud he
held are liable under the conspiracy act. They
were told that the section OF the revised
statutes providing punishment for crimes such as
were alleged against the defendant, had been re-
pealed and therefore these persons If guilty, are
to escape punishment, as such repeal operated as
a repeal OF the entire law, Notwithstanding the
section referred to had been repealed since the
length to show that the principle was established
in law that such changes in statutory acts were
considered to be still In force respecting offences
ogouS cases where indictments made subsequent
to the repeal Of the sections on which they were
based, for offences committed prior to the repeal,
were sustained In accordance with the saving pro-
visions OF section 13, of the Revised Statutes The
argument OF Mr.. Wilson directed against the
demurrer. The defence were at liberty to chal-
lenge their right to file such information but he
claimed that other grounds had been entered upon
which did not rightly come up here. No attack
he said, had been made on the first count OF the
information, except the allegation that a con-
spiracy to defraud must be conspiracy to exist
ing crime.
Mr.. Wilson here interrupted the speaker and re-
ferred Mr Bliss to news paper report OF the pro-
ceedtngs In the court yesterday, to show that the
nrst count had been attacked on other grounds
The part to which Mr.. Wilson referred was that in
which he alleged that what was alleged to have
Deen done had not been constituted crime by the
statutes. Mr. Wilson called attention, further
along IN his remarks, to thepoint where he said
that IL was not enough to merely allege that the
acts were corrupt, &C., saying that after treating
OF the nrst three counts, he then had intended his
remarks 10 apply to all OF them and to attack
| them all w ~
Mr.. Bliss said he did not prefer to follow the de-
fence In their criticisms OF the second and third
counts OF the information, leaving that for oLhers:
| simply saying that II they sustained one OF the
counts II would be sufficient for the purposes OF
the prosecution. The first count of the Indictment
was In strict accordance with the decisions in the
Cruikshank case (Which he quoted at lengthy and
In eonsonance with all the precedence in conspir-
acy cases. He claimed that the infOrma-
e1n5es ton co1lomed b'a in every way with the prn-
speaking OF the ground taken by the defence that