Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-05-01


tions Of the Court, bring I'm . Verdict
Of g Not Guflty.''
THE INDICTMENT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LINZ
TATIoNS.
When the Criminal Court met this morning
Judge Wyle decided the motion made In the trial
OF ex-senator William Pitt Kellogg to strike out
the evidence OF John B. Price. There were, the
court said, two considerations In this case which
took the motion out of the ordinary route The
first reason was that counsel had given notice
when Price took the stand that they would re-
serve the right to move to have the evidence
stricken out instead OF objecting to the reception
OF the evidence. Substantially the motion was an
objection to the evidence. The other reason was
that counsel for the government had stated that
this case depended upon the evidence OF Price.
That admission placed this motion on about the
same ground as demurrer to the evidence at the
end OF the trial For these reasons and In common
fairness, the court was disposed to decide the
motion at this time, as the whole matter could be
settled now as well as though all Of the evidence
had been presented and days spent In the trial
The indictment professed to be based upon q
statute OF 1782 OF the Revised Statutes 1t was not
an Indictment for bribery, because Mr. Kellogg was
not an executive officer OF the government, was
he bribed to do anything in his legislative Office. 1t
was case provided for by section 1,7S2, prohibit
Ing members OF Congress, heads OF departments. &c.
from receiving, directly or indirectly, any compen
sation for services rendered 10 connection with ny
claim contract, &c, in which the United States is
a party. The complaint In the indictment charged
OF 81, 800 for using his influence to obtain allow
ances for expedition. On the face OF the indict-
@ enl Ihe court old not discover anything irregular
Inc order Tor expedition was made in 1879.
THE CHARGE AGAINST KELLOGG
was that he received his compensation April 19,
1880. The Indictment was found April IS, 1883. II
the allegation in the Indictment had been true in
point OF fact, the indictment found within the
period OF statute OF limitation. II Price testified
before the grand jury as he did In court the bribery
had wrong date assigned to 1t; for according to
his testimony the transaction between Eim and
Kellogg took place on the 18th of July, 1879 That
was the testimony OF Price alone was considered
II the of1ense charged in the Indictment was really
committed July Is, 1879 it was the duty of the
court to say that it is impossible for jury to ind
verdict OF conviction The testimony OF Price on
that subject was that while his application to the
Second Assistant Postmaster General for expedi-
ton was pending he proposed to Kellogg to pay
him $4,000 1or his influence II he obtained the
orders Kellogg made no reply but to say he would
see about 1t and take the papers. few days later
the desired order made, and on the 18th OF that
IN month @ Price gave kellogg his promssory note for
upon his pay as contractor and payable out Of GER
tain quarters. He testified that the orders and
notes were given in absolute payment for the ser
vices rendered, and that so far as he (Price) was
concerned ended the whole business. The note was
paid at maturity and would be barred by the
statute OF limitations so with all the orders eX-
cept one, the date OF payment OF which fell within
the period OF limitation. These were orders upon
pay yet TO be earned. and upon contrct which the
Post Office department had right to. discontinue
or curtalL They were orders that might or might
not be paid. That depended upon the policy OF the
as they were, were accepted by Kellogg in full pay
ment Now, II the date OF the Offense was to be
calculated from July 49, 1879. 1t was clear that all
OF these instruments were barred by the statute OF
limitations The court thought that that was the
correct view. IL was the only transaction between
Kellogg and Price. The risk was taken by Kellogg,
na OF
Price. There could be no doubt that the date OF
the Of1ense was July Is, 1879. IL was too clear
proposition TO require discussion
THE NEXT QUESTION
was whether the evidence sustained this charge in
the tndictment-that the defendant had received
from Price money in compensation for his services
The evidence OF Mr. Price is that not dollar passed
between them. There was note and these orders
on the Post ONCE department. Neither the note
nor the orders could De treated as the payment OF
house and lot the title of the property would be
valuable but 1t would not be money. The tndict-
ment should contain specific allegation. The de-
fendant could not be required to answer some other
or some equivalent charge. Counsel for the gov
ernment had made an earnest effort to convince
the court that In these enlightened times the world
was getting away from the technicaiit1es OF COM
mon law usageS- That would have been very well
II he had been addressing legislative body or a
town meeting. This court did not presume to make
law. The indictment might have contented itself
with charging that Price paid to Kellogg 81 500 in
value, UuU NucIe du OUeuSo was OeScTlDeQ the
courts held that the facts must be set out, SO the
defendant might have notice OF what he was re-
Quired TO meet. Here the Indictment said specifl-
cally that 1t was 1850 In lawful money OF the
United States II the Indictment was more specific
than the law required that 1t should be- the prose-
cutOr must sustain by evidence the offense as
charged These rules were reasonable rules. a man
should not be brought into court and have new
charge sprung upon him. When the case is settled
he Is entitled TO the protection OF the verdict The
case is settled forever. He assumed that the case
had been tried on the principles OF equity or mod
ern hberality urged by those who warred on tech
nicalitieS and was convicted The next grand jury
indicted him for receiving postal drafts as cOmpen-
SatiOn. The defendant might plead that he had
been previously tried for the same oense but the
record would show that he was previously con-
victed OF receiving lawful money II this trial pro-
ceeded, and the defendant was convicted, the YER
dict would not protect him from being again in
dcted unless the statute OF limitations INTERVIEWED
THE EVIDENCE OF PRICE EXCLUDED.
For the reasons stated the court excluded the
evidence OF Price.
ATTORNEY wORTHINGToN SAYS THIS CASE DID NOT
REST ON PRICES EVIDENCE ALONE.
Mr.. WOrthngton stated that he thought the
court was in error In stating that the government
admitted that the case depended wholly upon the
evidence OF Price. They expected to follow this
evidence with proof that the orders when due
were paid in lawful money of the United States.
He did not understand that Price had said that
Kellogg accepted these notes and drafts In full pay
ment.
The court thought that what Mr. Worthington
admitted now showed that the testimony OF Price
was at the foundation OF the case. II 1t were eX-
cluded the other evidence would not be competent.
Kellogg was not indicted for having agreed to re-
ce1ve $4,000, but for receiving certain sum In law
full money.
Mr.. WOrthington said that the case OF the govern
ment did not depend upon Prices testimony; that
they could prove it by other witnesses but the
facts would be the same as those testified to by
Price.
Judge Wylie said he had not decided the motion
on the personality OF Price, but the facts as set
forth IN Prices testimony and that the case would
be the same, no matter who had testified to the
facts
After brief consultation, Mr.. Reynolds rising,
expressed the disappointment OF himself and col
leagues that the court had felt constrained to
decide the question as 1t had done. AS they under
stood the ruling OF the court the OnenSe charged
was barred by the statue OF limitations There
was nothing left tor them to do but to place the
THE COURT TO THE JURY.
"Gentlemen OF the jury" said the court turning
to the Jury box 'the defendant Is entitled to your
verdict"
VERDICT OF s'NoT GUILTY"
The foreman OF the jury then advanced to the
clerks desk and went through the form OF announc-
ing a verdict OF mot guilty."
The defendant left the court room surrounded by
his counsel and friends
MOL. PROS OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST WITNESS
PRICE FOR CONSPIRACY.
Mr.. Worthington, rising, said that In the case of
James B. Price and Thomas J. Brady, Indictment
No. 14a59, he desired to enter nole prosequi to