National Republican., 1883-12-22
VIOLATING prNs1oN Laws.
Remarks OF Judge wyiie Concerning the
Law OF Libel.


The grand Jury yesterday, among other indict
mens, presented true bills against N. W. Fitzger-
aid, Samuel c. Fitzgerald. and Andrew b. Webb
for alleged violation of laws relating to pensions
The Indictment against the Filzgeralds charges
that on April 49, 1888, while engaged in prose-
cutting claims, they obtained Information that
certain Charlotte A. Lappe, residing at Caskill, N
", had been the wife Of Joseph Travers Of com
pany A. 3sth New York volunteers, who died of
consumption March, 1866 that they devised
scheme to defraud Mrs. Lappe by writing to her
that she was entitled 10 pension, well knowing
that she was mott that they endeavored to obtain
a $40 fec. and used the mails, violating section
$3.50 revised statutes of the United States. The
witnesses are Albert 7. Kingsley, Charlotte A:
Lappe, and George W. Block. The indictment
against Webb alleges attempt To dgfraud certain
Hannah Pratt formerly Evans, OF $40 fee by the
same means The witnesses are A. f. Kingsley,
When the papers were handed to the clerk Dis
trct Attorney Corkhill called attention to an open
letter addressed to him published in one Of the
the letter was sent to each member OF the grand
jury. The letter was then read. MY objection
said Col. Corkhill, sis that this document when
1t was known that the grand jury were investi-
eating this question, vas sent to all The members
Of the grand Jury to influence their action in vio-
Judge Wylie read the section bearing on the
law relative 10 attempting to influence the action
of Jury, which provides that the oaense be pun
ished by u fine OF not more than $4,000, or i'm
prlsonment Of not more than three months, or
both.
'Vrhis is matter proper for the investigation of
the grand jury" said Judge Wylie. "lf they have
received these papers containing this letter, they
may proceed TO Investigate the matter, and If they
find that IL Is such an ofense as is described in
section 5405 1t is proper subject for presentnent
by the grand jury and for indictment. In the
present condition of the matter the court has no
Information as to who sent these papers. The
letter was printed In paper, but that is not an
indictable ofienso. The CriminRlity of the act
consisted in attempting to influence the grand
jury in regard to n matter which was pending be-
fore them. The offense of publishing the letter If
txNac nm nm ems M ~ n a n the
jury could take any note of, or the court but, II
some one has sent copies of the paper TO the mem
bers of the grand jury withthe view of induenc-
ing their action, then 1t Is an oitense under this
statute. The court has no judicial knowledge
of what was pending before the grand
jury at the time. the paper was printed,
or whether Fitzgerald was before you for nvesti.
CATION on any subject, although understand an
indictment has been presented this morning
against him. The grand jury know whether that
indictment was pending when they received these
papers. Then the next question Will be who sent
the papers? II is not an indictablo ohense on the
part of the newspaper. II might be a libel on the
might prosecute. That would be common libel,
but the particular olense here is the. attempt to
interfere in the investigations Of court OF justice
in matter pending, so that under this statute 1t
must be the sender OF the letter who has offended.
You have the power of summoning witnesses and
Il, after exam lining them, you ascertain who sent
the papers and come to the conclusion that its M
tended effect was 10 interfere with your delibera-
tons in tn matter that party is liable TO indict-
ment. If you find that the editor OF the paper sent
it, he is liable. Thecourt gives you this matter in
special charge at the instance of the attorney Of
the United States"
Bench warrants for the defendants were taken