National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-11-10

fraud9 Would that be ndictabe under section
54t03 That Is fraud which Is cogngable In
court OF chaneery, and when the men came 70 get
their pay, they would be stoprcd by the account
ing officers Of the Treasury and would be com
PEELED 10 come N the Court OF Claims whore
they would be called upon 70 prove that they did
not perpetrate n fraud, and N they fnilcd they
would get no money. with reference TO the Of.
fenses against the revenue laws they are all
manufactured crimes they 0re not natural of
lenses they are created by express law aud In this
very statute OF 1867, where this section had It's
origin, numerous things are charged as crimes:
The Revised Statutes OF the United States contain,
suppose, three or four or five hundred separate
and distinct crimes relating 10 the internal rev
enue law. u that was the intention OF Congress
in that statute, which was passed IN 1901 making
conspiracy TO defraud a crime by ITSELF why did
they 20 on and continue 10 lcgslatc from that
time 10 the present. creating new crimes
UNDER THE REVENUE LAws2
submit 70 the Court that that IL not reasonable
view. submit 10 tho Court further, that II means
they have come In here In pursuance OF section
$40 and that they are bound by that statute and
bound by the decisions of the Court, which shy
that that statute cannot be enforced unless some
particular fraud Is charged, which is made crime
leave the statute, they cannot appeal to
the common law OF Maryland for the purposes
Of eking out an insufficient charge against the de-
PENDANTS, because this Is In the form Of proceed
ing, by virtue Of the statute " in such cases made
and provided" IL is true that tho common;
law sfon hs 81 seems 70 S,ed
Your Honor to the we'll known case Of Fernando
Wood. lie was mistaken about that case. That
was not such conspiracy as Is set out, or at
tempted 20 be get out here. That was conspiracy
OF Fernando Woods dog TO make night hidcous,
annoying the neighbors In that locality and the
dog was proceeded against
ny INFORMATION IN THE POLICE COURT
and was abated. That Is all there was In that
case There was, however, n conspiracy trial
against Mr.. Harrington. and there was also con.
spracy under this very statute changed against Mr..
Sawyer, Mr. Haincs, and numerous other people.
But the only common-law conspiracy trial
da snow q as A M a. recent
Is no doubt in my mind that the law OF conspiracy
prevails in. Maryland, and It has been there
Yonr Honor desires rr 10 make max 'Snn noe Of
regard TO the statute Of % Edward. They proceed
not by virtue OF any statute These gentlemen,
therefore, cannot appeal to the common law to exc
already said enough, If the Court please. on that
subject except that want to call your attention TO
the cases arising, SO far az have been able to find
now to the United States vs. Rimeskof, in Mil
waukee, (6 Bissell, 80. That was q change
ofconspracy 10 defraud the revenue. The case
of U. :. VI. Darian, III BlRtchford, 1879. was the
same. think, although cannot get proper infor.
nation about that. The case OF U. s. VS. ulrici
q Dillon, 0S2l was q case OF fraud against the
revenue so declared by special statute. The
case OF U. s. VS. Babcock a Dillon, 5si) was the
same thing. The case Of the U. s. Va, Nunnemaker
q BisSell, III, In Milwaukee, was case OF fraud
under the statute The case Of Grnf "a Blatchford
| 3S1) was for the crime OF smuggling--a well. de-
fined ofiensc under the statute The case of U. s.
the revenue The case OF u. s. VS. Goldberg q Bis.
sell, 100, was case OF fraud upon the revenue.
The ease of U s vs.. Butler q Hughes $50, was q
| upon the doctrines are laid down against people
who invade, the rights Of citizens in cleo
tons in the Southern States; The case
/ have not been able to find what
that was about. US. VS.; Cronon q Dillon, l45j
| lent claim Against the United States under section
Oi3s. The case OF er.pdre Shaftenberg a Dillon,
21D was claim arising upon fraudulent vouch :
! cuted under statute making that crime,
| The case Of ex-parte Karstendick (93 U. s.,
1861, which I have called Your Honors
attention 10, was a claim arising in Louisiana
against the revenue laws for violation ofte statute
making that particular acta crime. think Your
| Honor VIII lind that all the decisions
| ARE UNIFORM ON THIS QUESTION;
that before case can be supported In this section
the facts set out TO the fraud must be such facts
as are known as frauds according to some prinoi.
Piles oflaw. That brings 10 the last item IN this
memorandum have made, and the last matter u
which desire 10 call your attention, and that Is
the doctrine which we get from the English
bound. that there must be no suppression
OF the truth want TO refer Your Honor upon
this point to the Seth page of Cole on Criminal In
| formations. presume you have that noted down
already. This Information charges In three oil
four distinct and separate places that Walsh was q
party 70 ana 0F tSas with Brady
those things which were DONE II resulted in q
contract being made In April 1879, between Walsh
and the Postmaster. General. Now IL Is fact
| that In June and July last large sums Of money
were paid out Of the public Treasury to this same
Walsh as appears BY way OF affidavit, and We
| hayea rightto
COME IN AND SHOW CAUSE
by this affidavit. in order to let Your Honor have
u fair opportunity Of exercising your discretion
upon this subject. The affidavit shows that thi
N.1a
have sworn was corrupt and fraudulent contract
What kind OF presentation is that? Hav
these prosecutors presented themselves her
with clean hands,; with undeiled minds
and made an honest prosecution, al
honest prescntment of the case to You
they have taken up this alleged fraudulent an,
corrupt contract and have executed it, They no
only have done that, but they have bloted out o
which Mr.. Brady and his superior officer put upoi
that contract. They declare that the con
tractor had violated his duty and was no
entitled to pay because he had abandoned TIL
service, and they put fines ofs900O against his pay
In pursuance ofthe execution Of this alleged cor
rupt contract with Walsh these very parties tina
are here to-day asking Your Honor's sanction 4
this Legitimate and extraordinary proceeding
have taken up tina, contract; removed Oh
BY Brady, and have executed It an,
paid $4,000 out of the public Treasury of III
United States on the authority OF what the
say Is a fraudulent and corrupt contract, made ii
pursuance OF n corrupt conspiracy. Now, sa
that was n suppression of facts which ought }
lead Your Honor, If there was no other reason, I
deny the application TO file this paper VIVA
would any man or any child say TO q charge {
| that kind, against a contract of this kind
UNDER SUCH cIRcUMsTANcEs2
Here is fraudulent contract against the Gov
eminent stopped by the predecessors Of these meT
taken up In the month of June last, aler all thes
| publications had been made, after all these dc
nunciations OF these men and of these contract
aud these acts OF expedition and increase-act
ually taken UP this fraudulent contract and exc
cuted it--executed II In behalf of man who wa
as corrupt according TO their statement, MS any
body In the party-a party TO corrupt agreemei
with all these people. And they have actual
paid him for services which he did not rendC
81, 900 out of the public Treasury OF the Unite
States l submit to Your Honor that no such Gus
is entitled To the exercise OF any discretion of u
5 dical officer Let them go TO the grand jur
with that statement. Let twenty-five goo
liability OF such plea. VIII Your Honor take
note offs Stat at L.. 800, section I'D bearing upo
the prosecutions for fnes, penalties, and forfeit
ures that Is the internal revenue act of 1854 ais
the statute Of 1866; Ia Stat at L., 14S, upon th
same subject; this Is an amendment 10 the sectio
= which have just given you.
l That Is all have to offer, Your Honor. | Al
|; very much obliged to the court for the iutcre
which has been manifested In the hearing Of tn
for my associates Would Your Honor like TO hay
, this famous advertisement to which have beio
referred during the progress of my arguments
The C0urt-NO. / think not. l may he able
announce my opinion tomorrow morning.
, Thereupon the court adjourned.
REAL ESTATE.