Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-07-23
The Case Of Ex-senator Kellogg.

ARGUING THE MOTION TO QuAsH THE INDICTMENT.
This morning in the Criminal Court, Judge Wy
lie, the hour for hearing the arguments on the
motion to Quash in the OF ex-senator Kellogg,
indicted for illegally receiving money while gov
ernment o1cer-10x o'clock-found but few per-
sons present. Among these were MessrS Merrick
and ker, representing the government and Me ISIS.
Shcllabarger, j. Wilson and n Wilson for the de-
fendant
The court having asked If they were prepared to
argue the motion. Mr.. Ker asked Mr.. Shellabarg-
shellabarger answered, II will open something,
but do not know whether 1t will be song or a
sermon"
KELLoGG's BRIEF.
MI. Shellabarger presented printed brief and
proceeded with his argument The recapitulation
OF the brief is that the indictment is bad
1st 1t does not allege that the compensation
was for procuring contract, Office or place.
for which the compensation was taken, anything
which Is In law equivalent TO an averment that
the compensation was for procuring contract
10. what IL does set out as the thing for which
the compensation Is alleged to have been taken ts
not only not equivalent to procuring "any con-
by Price is the procuring OF Brady to make orders
which the Indictment and statute show the de-
partment had perfect and pre-existing right.
or consultation Of Price, or any one else; and
hence these averments are repugnant to the idea
and position that the thing compensated was "for
The indictment is bad, as one based on section
1852, because: 1St. The Indictment nowhere AYERS
any compensation for services rendered" or agreed
to be rendered. in the language OF SECTION 1882.
3D. 1t does not set forth what is at all equivalent
alleged fee was paid paid was Services ' rendered or
agreed to be rendered" 3d. Even did the indict-
mcnt aver <as it does noD that the alleged fee was
received for services" rendered, yet that would
not be sufficient; but iu must proceed beyond
tols and aver In what and how the service was
rendered, sin which is not here done, because the
procuring" proc and % is not Services" % 0a'a' 4in
the omitted statutory words descriptive OF the
pretended services" anything which is, under
this section, services" but what is set out, as
ctal 'procuring" or "1nfiuence," and is therefore
repugnant to an averment Of services" 9Th.
Since such statutes are construed strictly
against making innocent acts crimes, and since
the word services" implies, and here means,
labor performed for compensation under contract
OF employment {and does not mean acts meant to
therefore the indictment is fatally defective In
falling to aver that the alleged acts were done as
and for pay, and with that intent or purpose.
6th. ihe words "before any department." &C.,
here imply a formal and representative appearing
an agent or an advocate assumes when repre-
senting principal or client: and this requisite Of
deed segea service having 6er0e
one OF these tribunals is not salts
fed by simply averring. as is here done, that
defendant procured, &c, Brady, &C.. and 7th, be-
cause section 1871 attaches, to conviction of a
violation Of 1t, additional consequences to those
resulting from conviction under section 1882 to
wit, right In the President to declare void the
illegally procured contract, and also because Of
the fundamental rule OF complete certainty requi-
site in such indictments as this, the indictment
must be so framed, as to fulneSS and certainty In
describing the crime, to 'identify and charge a
specific offense prohibited by one section or the
Others" and as the court cannot see certainly on
looking at 1t on which Of these two sections u7S1
or 1889 1t was intended to be drawn, for this
reason, also, the Indictment is insufficient.
Mr.. Shellabarger argued the motion till 1910
O'Clock. when Mr. Ker followed for the govern
ment.
Mr.. Merrick made a brief argument for the gov
ernment, following Mr.. Ker.
Mr.. N. Wilson made the closing argument,
speaking about hour.