St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-12-19
ST. PAUL NEWS.
PEEK-A-B0 RUGG.
Continuation of the Case Before U. 5.
Commissioner CardOZa.
Testimony and Arguments All In-Decision
to be Announced at 10 O'Clock To-day.

correspondence between Stanley Waterloo,
the editor-in-chief of that paper, and Miss
Bagby, the ac complished associate editor,
and heart-foam letter writer, was resumed
before Commissioner Cardoza at 2 o'clock
yesterday afternoon. At that hour the small
room was filed with reporters, spectators and
the principals to the fight
On taking his seat Commissioners Cardoza
said that he had examined the authorities as
to the propriety Of the question put to the
accused, and be had concluded that it was
proper inquiry.
Mr.. Congdon then asked the accused what
he did with the letters on taking them from
the envelopes.
The witness replied that he had shown
them to Mr.. Bradley; be had also shown Mr..
Nichols one of the letters; might have per-
haps shown them to others; had been wor-
ried about his troubles and the effort made to
defraud him; thought he had shown them to
another man; had had two or three Of the
letters photographed; witness had strong con-
victions of Waterloo's duplicity; on showing
the letter to Bradley the latter said that Miss
Bagby had told him that Waterloo and
DAVIDSON were cooking up scheme to GUST
him: witness had been the backbone Of the
concern and he did not want to get left;
in opening the letters witness had only
obeyed instructions, and when he saw that
he was getting the worst OF IL be simply tried
to protect himself.
At this point the defense rested, and Mr..
Congdon, for the state, made short address.
He said the case had been tried on two
theories on either of which the accused
should be held; it WAS shown that in prying
into the secret correspondence of Mr.. Water
loo a crime had been committed; the latter
had ordered his private mail sent
to the Metropolitan hotel, and he
had never directed it to be sent elsewhere;
he instructed Rugg to remove only his bag
gage; Rugg had been authorized TO open
the letters which came to the Day office and
he had also been instructed to lay all private
letters to one side; counsel thought a case
had been made out.
Mr.. Pierce. counsel for Rugg, then adj
dressed the court
Counsel referred to the state of facts, and
said that with regard TO the letters the only
evidence submitted was that it had been re-
ceived at the Metropolitan hotel; Mr.. Rugg
had not been aware of letters being re-
ceived at the hotel; the letters had been duly
delivered by the United States, aud the gov
eminent then lost all control over them tine
person to receive the letter from the govern
ment was the Metropolitan hotel: the next
step was that the letter was given to the
business department OF the Day; it was given
to those who were expected to take charge of
all mail matter; after this the letter was
handed to Mr.. Waterloo but the state failed
to produce the letter; they only put the mere
envelope in evidence, whereas the charge
called for not letter, but the letter; this was
the very essence of the charge and counsel
thought that the United States had
failed utterly to make out a case;
there was no proof as to who opened the
letter; it had been shown, however, that the
letters were lying In drawer open to the
inspection of everybody around the Office; in
order to hold the accused there should be
sufficient pTinnn .tdcie evidence TO make out a
case; no jury could convict him on such
evidence as submitted. In this case there
was an entire in terreguum from the time the
letter reached the Day Office and Mr.. Water
loo's return from St. Louis; all track of the
letters was lost; it was not shown by whom
it had been opened; he had opened other
letters and in one of them be had found
facts which referred to him personally;
he had found that a conspiracy was being
formed against him and he made such use of
the information as would protect himself.
On the other hand it was shown that the ac-
cused had been authorized to open the let
tiers. The law expressly stated that in order
to convict there must be a wrongful taking.
Counsel then cited number OF authorities
to prove the proposition. He showed that the
purpose of the law was to protect the letter
until it reached the address; the liability of
the government then ceased; the mail de-
partment had given the letter to the hotel:
the United States or postoflice department
never delivered the letter to the accused; it
had been in the control of
the hotel and the clerk of the
Metropolitan had given it to him.
The counsel claimed that it made no differ
cnce what became of the letter after that. so
long as criminal intent was not shown at the
time of taking It; the accused had merely
received the letter from person who had
received it from the postoflice department:
the letter had been delivered to the person
addressed the Metropolitan hotel; from that
moment the latter became responsible for IL:
it had taken the letter from the United States
and all control over it by the latter was lost:
the hotel was the custodian of the letter.
AS to the facts, they had failed to show
wrongful taking, Or any taking at all by the
accused; the counsel again cited authorities
to sustain this point; II was The duty of the
Day Office; if he had failed to accept the let
tiers he would have failed TO DO his duty, aud
the intention was to punish him for doing
his duty; he had been instructed to open the
letters, and if he made wrongful use of in
formation he was amenable to other courts
but not to this one; it had been
proved that some of the busi-
ness letters had been addressed to
Mr.. Waterloo in person; tue counsel claimed
that perhaps the very letter contained by the
envelope had been business letter
Mr. Congdon then addressed the court.
He said it was settled that there was no crime
in the federal court unless tue federal statutes
expressly declared a crime; it was well
known that there was no common law in
the federal court. The law said that in any
event the letter must be let
ter that has been in the post
office; also thathe must take it before it has
been delivered TO the person to whom it is
directed: until the person entitled
10 break the seal receives it
he letter is under the protection of the court;
The first query was. Was the letter ever in
he postoficei was it received by Rugg? did
le open it before it was seen by Waterloo9
t was iinmaterial which letter the envelope
contained so long as it was letter. But lac
must open the letter with the intent OF pry-
ng into the correspondence Of another; the
etters We're seen by Bradley in the posses
non OF Rugg: they were open; it was shown
hat ne had pryed into the contents Of the
etters, as he said, for self protection; the
opening OF the other letters at the
lime OF the receipt of the one in question
MAS sufficient evidence of intent; when it
MAS added that he photographed the contents
here could be no doubt of the intent: it
Mas the duty of the court, in view of these
!acts, TO remand the accused The counsel