Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-12-21

Tbs grand jury came into court this morning anC
reported, among Others. Indictments against NATHAN
W. Fitzgerald and Samuel {. Fitzgerald and Andrew
B. Webb, for alleged violation o. laws relating X
pensions When the papers had been handed &
the clerk District Attorney Corkhu arose. and
stated that he felt IL his duty TO call the atten
ton OF the court TO one or two circumstances
He referred first TO the importance OF keeping tat
proceedings before the grand jury absolutely secret
until they have been formulated IA court. ana alsC
10 the ruling OF the court that The District Attorney
where he has any fear OF mans escaping. can
nave MN arrested upon presentment alone with.
out the delay incurred 20 drawing an Indictment
ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO TAMPER WITH TIVE JURY.
There was another matter. the district attorney
said, TO which he wished 70 call the attention OF the
court on personal grounds "There was published
what was called an open letter 10 me. The only
reason it was open, l suppose, was because
sent TO every member OF the grand jury.
One OF the members declined 10 open IL, and handed
IL TO me- The open letter is in regard TO the prose-
cuton OF one OF the parties who has been presented
to-day In that letter is charge that personally
had some intereSt-and / am certain your honor
win Justify me in saving that have never had in
terest In any prosecution except an officer desr
lag TO perform his duty. u there was nothing out
side OF that would have attended 10 IL becomes
my duty as prosecuting officer before the Srand
jury. But being personal letter to me. and being
sent to every member OF the grand jury, feel IL
public duty to ask your honor to say something 10
sires II VIII hand you the letter.
"Read 1t yourself" said the court.
THE "oPEN LETTER READ.
The district attorney tore the wrapper OF news
paper which he said was addressed to VIM Whelan
member OF the grand jury He exhibited paper
to show that the article had been marked with a
blue pencil. He then read the article. which was
addres ed TO the district attorney and signed by
n. w. Fitzgerald. II criticised the district at
torney q conduct In attempting TO prosecute pen
sion attorneys and appearing as attorney I'm the
libel suits brought by Fitzgerald against certain
newspapers.
SIT is true. your honor,n said Mr. Corkhtll when
he had finished reading. ssthat am the attorney OF
the GLOBE Democrat and the Cincinnati Conn
,nerctdt. Gazette but have right TO appear pro-
fesSionay In these cases It Is criminal pro-
ceeding. am likewise an attorney for THE EVEN
ING STAR company in prooeed1ng against them
NV objection is that this document, when IT was
known That the grand jury was Investigating this
question, was sent 10 all the members OF the grand
jury, TO influence their action. in violation OF laws
JUDGE wYLIE's REMARKS.
Judge Wylie read section 5405. r. s, providing
that persons attempting to influence the action of
grand or petit jury, 10y writing reading a letter
&c. shall be punished by fine OF not more than
$1,000 or Imprisonment OF not more than six
months. or both.
"This," said Judge Wylie. closing his book ais
matter proper for investigation OF the grand fury
II they have received these papers containing this
and II they find that IL is such AN offenSe as is de-
scrbed In section 54o5 II is proper subject for pre-
sentiment by the grand jury and for Indictment.
no Information as TO who sent these papers The
letter was printed in paper but that is an in
dct3bie oense The criminality OF the act consisted
in attempting TO influence the grand jury In regard
to amatter which was pending before them. The Of
tense OF publishing the letter, IL II was oYense,
was not such q one as the grand fury could take
any note or or the court, but II some one has sent
copies OF the paper to the members OF the grand
jury with the view OF influencing their action,
then 1t Is an offense under this statute.
The court has no judicial knowledge OF
what was pending before the grand jury
or whether Fitzgerald was before you for lnyesti-
cation on any subject, although I understand an
indictment has been presented this morning against
him The grand jury know whether that indict-
ment was pending when they received these papers.
Then the next question will be who sent the
papers? 1t Is not an tndictable Oense on the part
OF the newspaper. IL might be q libel on the part
OF the paper, which the district attorney might
prosecute. That would be a common libel, but the
particular onenSe here is the attempt 10 interfere
In the Investigations Of court OF justice in mat
ter pending, that under this statute ii must be
the sender OF the letter who has offended.
You have the power OF sunmoning witnesses, and
II. after examining them, you ascertain who sent
the papers and come to the conclusion that its in
tended effect was to interfere with your deibera-
lions IN the matter, that party Is liable to indict
ment II you find that the editor of the paper sent
It. he Is liable. The court gives you this matter In
special charge at the instance OF the attorney Of
the United SJatesn