National Republican., 1881-11-07

-
the case in 10 Blatchford-and am glad to bo re-
minded OF TIA case with which happen 70 bo
exceedingly familiar for reasons which need not
be mentioned uho Coleman casc)--the question
raised was, as the gentleman claims In this portion
OF hls argument a question Of pleading and was
claimed In n portion of his argument that the
question there was one of probable cause, In that
Ease me aiiidavit or complaint was read yester-
nay, ana II Is not necessary for me TO repeat II,
Ihere Is no statement as TO wherein the ilcgality
ISSUING OR MAKING THE CERTIFICATE CONSISTS.
inD Peter Coleman, Is Blatchford, p. All, II is
The use by person for the purpose of registering
smpcor on m & 4 c m Ne q onl bn e
70 be admitted TO be citizen Ia not forbidden act or
affidavit Is that Coleman unlawnilly" used for such
purpose sch Certificate knowing thnt such certificate
heu been " "unlawlully" issued or made. Character
izng the unlawful does rfot gIye any Information
ns to the nature of the oflensc. Whether this was
that was unlawful Is not to aiieEc I6ct So also
TO aege that Coleman knew that the certificate had
information as 10 what fact or facts he Knew The
hvGaon G tnal Coleman knew the certificate was nm
HwIuy issued or made Is In substance allegation
oftwG things first, that the certificate had been un-
knew that when he SO used H. The alienation that
me certificate was unlnwully issued or made gives
guilty Rno@edse by coSmSn n and S 10 yIfS say tRaI co
man knew that the certificate was unlnwiuy issued,
the unlawiulnes Of the issuing consisted and that
Coleman knew the facts alleged to constitute such
the affidavit.
IAN DIRECTING YOUR HoSoR's ATTENTION
to the matter passed over as showing that that
case Is good authority on the question OF tho oath
TO this Information. IL is. perhaps TO some ex-
tent an authority on the question of the sufconcy
OF THIS intormation. While my friend yesterday
was reading from the Cruikshank case, amused
myself by taking from my file the entire passage
he was reading, and showing 1t TO the District; At
IPrRSy iSr tnS purpose Of showing that certainly M6y
with reference to the question of form of the charge
ofthe conspiracy do not desire TO 20 at any great
length into that. simply call your attention to
terms that they did certain things unlawfully,
wilinlly, fraudulcntly, aud corruptly. and from
wicked and corrupt motives, through wicked and
corrupt influences and means, causing and
procuring unnecessary, improper, and ex-
tSSY"s"s unS ns,a combpen;abton rn,o allowed
America, and In greater proportion than was al
lowed by law for additional service In carrying the
mails on a certain route. Then wego ON aud give
IN detail these facts, showing the amounts aud the
whole history OF the case. II IL all stated there in
detail aud IL that is nll the objection that can be
nnhesitatingly that the information conforms alb
solutely to the decision In the Cruikshank case,
and to the decision cited In that case am refer
ring now solely to
THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT
I do not propose to follow them in their criticism
upon the second and third counts of the indict-
mcnt shall leave that to others, simply saying
that all that Is necessary In these that there
should be one count of the information that Is
good, and claim that that count of the informa-
toni nm not throwing any doubt upon the other
Two, as II simply docs not full 10 me to pass upon
thnt-but claim absolutely that that count OF
the Information Is In strict accordance with
the decision IN the CruikshRnk case, and in strict
accordance with nll the prccedents upon the con-
structiOn ofindictments for conspiracy. 0fcoune
am aware, Your Honor, that the Cruikshank case
laid down n somewhat strctcr rule upon the
question of allegations In indictments Tor con-
spirncy than had existed In the law of England,
or had existed In the law OF some of the States
flaRNa Had l l...t 1n..s
more Indebtedness in the form Of allegations than
the courts OF England themselves thought desira-
BILE; and yet they considered themselves bound by
the preccdents to adhere TO them, probably. In
the Cruikshank case and also In the case In 5
Dillon, the Supreme Court adopted more strict
rule, and one more In accordance with the views
OF the modern English Judges as tn what should
be done, aud also i'll accordance with the decisions
in those States like New Hampshire, Maine aud
Aink Michigan, and one or two others,
WHICH HAD ADOPTED THE RULE;
and they differed from the laxer rule which had
been followed in implicit reliance upon the Eng
lsh decisions In some Of the other States. But gov
erned US we must be, of course by the decision aud
principles laid down IN the Cruikshank case, l
will leave that here simply, broadly, and abso-
lutely, claiming that the Information In this case
conforms to the principles In that case, so far as
the first count is concerned. l do that, however,
calling Your Honors attention again to tho argu
and urgently claim that this information Is insult
icient in form In the first count and we claim that
Il Is sufficient In form In It's first count; and that
to conform to authoritative decisions we claim
that this Is not n case where, under any ordinary
circumstances on motion TO resclnd in order TO
allow an information to be filed, the Court should
go into the matter at all. That may be left for a
motion to demur to the information or 70
MOTION AFTER VERDICT.
1t Is urged in the notice of motion, and was
stated by Colonel Ingersoll yesterday as one of
their grounds-though all my friends Cooks ur-
gency failed TO get from him any authority for the
statcment-that the matters and things alleged In
hp n fnrm a having nQntra ra1 IN ho
done were impossible Of execution by the defend
ants, or any Of them. Now precisely what that
means don't know and am about as much in
the dark after the explanation we got yesterday.
can imagine that Il might be claimed, perhaps.
that inasmuch as the law, II would be urged,
imposed duty upon the Postmaster General
when we allege conspiracy in which we state
that these things were done by the Second Assist
ant Postmaster. General, we were alleging that he
did things which rs a matter Of law he could not
do. That position might perhaps be taken, and
yet 1t would be good deal open TO the same sort
of reply made by u justice of the peace who con-
suited the chief justice of the State to know
WHETHER lie HAD RIGHT
to commit man for contempt after the case was
adjourned and they were taking a drink at a
neghborng bar. The chet justice broke out
with good deal ofindlgnatlon and said that lie
could not doit, You can't do III; you have 10
power 70 do IL" To which the Justice replied in
substance was; %Gont dol chS We'll We'll, Iu' have awe
done It. He has been IN Cambridge Jail three
days" 1t was impossible" for Mr. Brady 10 com.
set out the flets that he has committed them Il
may be said that the mere act of doing. a thing
was an unlawful exercise of power by him, en-
tirely Independent of any other question; but he
did the acts. and we say, that he did them,
and we set out how he did them. The
and now II has not got It, and In consequence OF
the acts of Mr. Brady and his associates. There
fore 1t is hardly right
TO SAY THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE
for him to do that. If he means TINT it was i'm
possible for him to do II under the statute, then
call Your HoaOrs attention to two or three alcgn-
ti0ns In this information which will not stop TO
refer 10 by pointing them out, but will say that
they charge that In the first place. MS TO certain of
these acts Mr. Brady falsely and ffaudulcntly rep
resented 10 his subOrdnatcs and 10 officers Of tho
Treasury Department. that the acts which he did
were done by authority of the Postmaster. Gcnenl
aud IN that way got the money out Of the Treasury
and dciraudCd the Government. We have also al
legged that ns TO certain other acts he misrepro-
scntcd and mlsstntcd to the Postmaster General
the hcis and In that way got from the Postmaster.
General, Judge Key, the authority of Mr.. Key he
not having knowledge of all the fGcts Whether
those allegations be true or not, they arc
ON THIS ARGuMEET OF THIS MOTION
to be taken us true ana therefore When IL Is saId
that II was impossible for Mr.. BRADY to have done
these things we say that It is not impossible, be.
callse he did them; aud in the second place Il was
not legally impossible for him 10 do the two things
refer to, and II he did those, and thereby de-
ffaudeh the United States then we say he Is liable
topnnislment. There Is upon my briefa reference
at the close In which state that have designedly
considered the question wholly independence tie
local laws of the District of Columbia or tho local
decisions, because l cannot DO assumed TO be
familiar with them; and rs 10 the majority of
them it would have been impossible for me 10
famliarlzo myself with them. 1 have called at
tention to n few sections and also have made
reference 10 the only two decisions which have
happened TO come TO my knowledge us bearing
upon the subject. | do not desire here 10
argue them; simply want to call your attention
10 one or two questions. 1t Is urged that because
the statute declares that anybody convicted OF
some classes of oiGnses shall not be juror there.
fore the crime of conspiracy Is an Infamous crime
people
WITHIN THIS DISTRICT ARE INFAMOUS
when, outside this District, they are not Well