Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-05-02
KELLOGG WINS THE DAY.
A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY REN-
DERED By THE JURY.

Limitations Held to Outlaw the Case
The Governments Counsel in Bad
Odor.
WASHINGTON, May las anticipated
in the News special dispatch last night,
the Kellogg case terminated abruptly in
the Criminal Court to-day. 1t failed be-
cause the Indictment was defective in
several particulars. The testimony of the
governments witnesses proved that the
statute Of limitations had run out, that
Kellogg did not receive a moneyed bribe,
but notes, that he did not conspire with
Gen. Brady as Second Assistant Post
master General, because the latter was
acting Postmaster General when-the con-
spiracy with Second Assistant Post
master General Brady was alleged to
have taken place. So the case as drawn
by the government was very lame. There
has been much comment in Congressional
circles upon the termination of the trial.
Col. Bliss is blamed, Mr.. Ker
is blamed, and lastly, but
not least, Attorney General Brewster
is blamed. 1t is charged that either stu
pidity or dishonesty has been the cause
Of all these failures. If stupidity it was,
then some one was to blame for paying
liOiAl PAOo " FlJV "a QdN lOI 5buJlu
lawyers. If dishonesty, then some one is
accountable, or should be. There will be
little patience shown for those who talk
of still further suits. There is a feeling
that there has been quite enough of this.
Chairman Springer intimated to the NEWS
correspondent this afternoon that his
committee would investigate these
charges against Congressman Kellogg,
with view to unseating him. TO-mOr-
Tf,lar TnT,
before the committee. There is not much
faith expressed in this move upon the
part of Mr.. Springer, because it is clearly
political.
THE PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.
The Criminal Court to-day resumed the
trial OF the Kellogg case. Immediately on
opening the court Judge Wylie began to
deliver his decision on the motions by the
defense to reject Mr.. Prices testimony
and all the evidence relating to the orders
for expedition upon his routes. Taking up
the first motion, he said that it was not
usual for such motions to be entertained
in the midst of a trial, and it would not
have been considered if there had not
been two considerations First, the course
OF the defense in permitting him to testify
subject to rel section afterwards, and sec
Ond, the aYowal of the prosecution
that it had no other evidence
upon the matter involved, which would
amount to a failure of the case
if it were rejected. The Indictment
charged a statutory Offense, a violation of
section 1872 of the Revised Statutes. 1t
was not strictly a case of bribery, but one
provided for by that section. 1t forbade
any Senator directly or indirectly from
receiving any compensation in relation to
any government contract. Briefly sum-
ming up the evidence already given Judge
NTxr1fr 81 r,cA = III
dicments charging that Mr.. Kellogg had
received $4,000 from Mr.. Price at differ
ent dates, beginning April Is, 1880. If the
allegations in the first count were true
that the first payment was on April Is,
1880, it would bring the Otfense within the
three years limit imposed by the statute
of limitations.
WITHOUT THE PALE OF THE LAW.
If Mr.. Price testified before the grand
jury as he did here, then the indictment
gave a wrong date, for the bribery took
place on April IS, 1879 and prosecution
was barred. No doubt the prosecution
knew that it was necessary to have date
that would bring it within the three years
limit. The defendant never is required to
plead the statute of limitations in a Grim
inal case; he simply could not be prose-
cuted. If the Offense charged was really
committed on April Is, 1879, 1t was the
duty of the court to say that it was i'm
possible to convict the defendant. Mr..
Prices testimony was to the effect
that he proposed to pay Mr.. kel-
logg $4,000, provided the expedition
order was made. A few days after that
order was made, and on April IS, 1879,
Mr.. Price gave Mr.. Kellogg his prOmissOry
note at four months for $4,000 and five
postal drafts. These drafts were payable
out of certain quarters. They were not
given as collateral. but in absolute pay
ment for service, and Mr. Price said that
that ended the whole business. The note
was paid upon maturity, and so as to all
the drafts, except one, and that would be
sufficient to sustain the indictment if it
were regarded as payment made upon
maturity. They were orders that might
or might not be paid, dependent
upon the will of the government
to abolish or decrease the service upon
route, such as they We're.
Mr.. Price testified that they were re-
ceiyed in full payment.
THE FATAL DATE.
What was the true date upon which the
statute Of limitations began to run? The
court thought that a correct view of the
matter would be to place the date at
April is. 1879 No other transactions of
the kind took place between the parties.
They had no other business. The note
and orders were accepted for what they
were worth. The risk of payment was
taken by Mr.. Kellogg and there was no
further liability upon Mr.. Price. The
business was settled the services were
rendered and here is your pay
your pay for the orders. The date must
be taken as of April Is, 1879
There could be no doubt abOutAhat. 1t
was too clear to require discussion. The
next question was whether The evidence
sustained the charge of the Indictment
that the defendant had received $4,000 of
lawful money. Mr.. Prices evidence was
that nOe dollar passed. The note pass
ed, and there were orders, but the note
could not be regarded as lawful money,
and much less could these orders be so
treated. 1t might as well be contended
that if Mr.. Price had conveyed a house to
Mr.. Kellogg the fact that it was worth
money, made it such. The court did not
presume to make law, and could not
throw aside all precedents and authOri-
ties as desired by the prosecution.
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
The Indictment might have contented
itself with charging that there passed a
consideration of $4,000, although the
court was not called upon to say whether
it would have been sustained. The de-
fendant was prepared to meet the charge
that he had received $4,000 III lawful
money, and the prosecution had no such
evidence. They said, however, that he
had received drafts, and that the case
should proceed in equity, as though he
had received money; but if the court
should assume that ground, and convict
this defendant, he could afterwards be
tried upon charge of re-
ceiying drafts. Nothing but the statute
of limitations could protect him,
and that was not the protection cOntem-
plated by law. For these reasons the
court thought the evidence must be eX-
cluded.
The District Attorney said that he de-
sired to clear up a possible misunder-
standing between the prosecution and the
court. They had not said that the gov
ernment's case rested upon Mr.. Prices
testimony, and they expected to prove the
same facts by other witnesses. They
would show that Mr.. Walsh collected the
drafts and paid Mr.. Kellogg in lawful
money. OF course they did not assert
that the transfer of the drafts in 1879 was
equivalent to payment of lawful money.
Referring to the crOss-eXamination, the
District Attorney expressed doubt as to
whether Mr.. Prices statement that he
regarded the passage of drafts as full pay
ment, made it such a payment.
FOUNDATION OF SAND.
The court said that that did not alter
the case. The prosecution admitted that
Mr.. Prices testimony was the foundation
of their case. Exclude that and all other
evidence would be irrelevant. As to the
other matter, the court had already eX-
pressed its views.
The District AttOrney-'fW meant to
say that the facts testified to by Mr.. Price
were the governments case, and that we