Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-04-12

Arguments in PROGRESS To-day.

1uiS su loou. IL was arranged yesterday afternoon
that each side should have two hours for argument
ARGUMENT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY woRTHINGToN.
District Attorney Worthington opened the argn-
ment for the government He stated that in his
view 1t was OF more Importance to punish the
oiiicer who was derect in his duty than the crim-
ina! VINO was granted immunity through this dere-
Hctlon. NO officer. detective who was in collu-
sion with thieves called in two or three credible
or reputable persons to witness the arrangement
between Stch detective and the thieves: SO that
the details or the arrangement could be proved only
by the thieves who entered into the arrangement.
As TO one OF these defendants certainly. and he
tnougnt 1ra q as & TO the other also, If there ever
was case before a jury in which the testimony of
an accompllce showed the defendant TO be guilty,
they had the case here. AS to Hovan, he had as
powerful an inducement to tell the truth as
any man ever had In the world. He was charged
here with the two crimes He knows that If he COM
nllts perjury he Will not only be prosecuted for
these crimes, but also for the crime OF perjury.
The testimony OF HOvan was cOrroborated as that
or no other witness in the case. 1t was corrob-
GRATED by facts that traDSpired after his testimony
was given, and that were not known before. The
theory OF the prosecution that there cOllu-
sion between these thieves and the detectives by
which the stolen property was turned over to the
defendants for their profit.
AN IMPORTANT coRRoBoRAT1oN OF HovAN.
The district attorney dwelt upon Hebhard's
story as to McDevitt, Finder and another man
getting carriage at Fadelys stable on the day OF
the robbery as an important corroboration OF
HOVan, which had not been impeached, except by
the testimony OF one man. who, evidently inspired
ny some malice, swOre that he would not believe
Hebhard under oath.
SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.
BE reviewed the circumstances connected with
the robbery, claiming that 1t a suspicious cir
cumstance that McDevtt was in the neighborhood.
He arrived at the bank within twenty minutes
aILer the robbery. Never was such an opportunity
offered to detective. All of the facts were laid
Delole him. What did he do? Absolutely nothing.
Mr.. thompson suggested that they should publish
list OF the Stoen bonds. as they were readily ne
tid he do that? Because he knew that the property
you'd not be negotiated. but that it would
De recovered from the thieves in accordance
with the arrangement. Mr.. Worthington emphasized
the TACT that police headquarters was not notified
OF the robbery. 1t was TO be kept quiet no one
was 10 know about it except McDevitt 1t could
not be possible TO reconcile NcDevitts proceedings
In inc matter except that he knew what was to be
done, ana that he could arrange the matter with
Out troubling the thieves with arrest Mr.. Worth
lnstoh dWelt upon various statements by McDeSitt
which ne deemed We're inconsistent.
REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY ABOUT FLINDER.
lie referred to the testimony Of Mr.. Thompson,
Mr.. White, and Mr. Whites son, that Flinders first
visit to Mr.. White and Mr. Thompson was made
between II and 12 O'Clock the night of the robbery
Mr.. Thompson and Mr. White said that Flfpder
then said he had received a dispatch from a broker
In New York that the '.stuff' was there and could
De ad ior $500 II was absolutely impossible that
!ne thieves and the ''stuf' could have reached New
York, dispatch sent to finder and Finder have
gone to Mr.. Thompson by that time Mr. Thomp-
son having confidence In McDevitt agreed to give
that this visit was made In accordance
with the understanding Of the thieves,
ana az o because the thieves wanted more than
S},WD fl1nder was trying to squeeze them to pay
fo.Uo. Mr.. WOrh!ngtOn went over tie testimony
relating to Flinders visit to New York, the secrecy
OF mysterious meetings with the thieves or their
agents, Claiming that 1t all illustrated collision
Win M,,a the thieves. He took up the statement OF
Finder as made to Chief Brooks, dwelling espec1nff
upon the fact that Finder said, when he went to
New YORK, he saw one man whom he had seen in
M washington, ing and who asked him whether he had
come LOT the ''Stuff." This was accepted by cOun-
sci Tor defense IS Flinders own defense. and was
an ADMISSION that Flinder had arranged with a
tne result OF his dissection OF Finders statement
ME- NorthingtOn claimed that Finder had buried
himself under lies mountain high 1t could not be
clalincd that the testimony against McDevitt was
as strong In detail as against Finder, but there
was ample proof, he thought, that
MDEVITT WAS IN CoLLUsIoN WITH FLINDER
The testimony as to McDevitts hiring buggy for
these men was the surprise OF the case 1t was a
grand climax, but climax ordained by Providence
ana not 10y the prosecution for the government was
ready 10 close It's case III good faith when this piece
OF evidence was brought TO them. He thought that
the PROOF was strong that McDevitt was In collu-
sion with Finder. and that when Finder received
the money 1t was for McDeyitt's profit as we'll as
his own He said it would have been pleasure to
MN III az, If McDevitt had told such story as to leave
no DOUBT OF his Innocence. He would have been
pleased II some OF these strangers who were st md
Ing IN front OF the City Hall had come forward and
have shown that they were not the thieves In his
perOratiOn Mr.. WOrthingtOn reminded the t,Iry that
the welfare and safety OF the community was in
their hands He closed about 1926 y. m.
THE DEFENSE SUBMIT THE CASE WITHOUT ARGUMENT
MI. Riley said then that, in view OF Mr.. Worthing-
tons address and the Instructions of the court
already fOrshadoWed, the defense did not deem It
necessary to worry the jury with argument, and
would submit without further argument. He there
upon submitted a number OF prayers, covering
points raised in the case.
Judge Wylic's Charge to the Jury.
Judge Wylie, addressing the jury, called atten-
ton to the fact that while there were two indIct-
ments the jury could convict only on one, and
should regard them as one. He read section 1,16O,
Revised Statutes, under which the indictment was
found The law, he said, made it an Offense for
any person to receive property which has been
stolen, knowing the same to have been stolen and
with the intent to defraGd The owner. The dues-
ton now was whether these men were guilty OF
this crime 1t was fundamental principle OF the
criminal law that the proof must sustain the
charge set out In the indictment. 1t would be un-
just and unreasonable to bring defendant into
court on one charge and try him for another He
comes prepared to meet the charge laid against him.
However guilty he may be III other matters he can
be convicted only of the charge against him In
this case there was no question that the property
was stolen. There was no doubt that Finder re-
celved this property knowing it to have been stolen
But the law required one thing more, and that is
that he receive 1t for the purpose deraudng the
d
property, knowing 1t to have been stolen, then the
owner himself would be iEdctable for receiving his
prop property back Another question in this case was
what IS receiving?
AS TO M'DEvITT.
There was no evidence that McDevitt ever re-
ce1Ved or saw any of this property. There was no
evidence that he ever had 1t within his control 1t
was sought to make him responsible because OF his
connection with Finder. McDeyitt was an Of
ncer OF the law; Finder was not an officer
OF the law, but what was called private de-
tect1ve. McDevitt admitted that he had an aSSOci-
alton with Finder. 1t is claimed that from that
facts shown, that MeDevitt was responsible
for what Finder did, something in the
same way as one partner Is responsible for
another. The principle relating to partnership
cases every man stands or falls by himself. There
was no such doctrine as cOpartnership or agency
Each man was guilty or innocent for himself II one
man authorized another to commit q larceny,
the criminal law it was the thief alone who was
responsible for the theft The other may be guilty
as an accessory before the fact, but that was
because OF his own acts He could ! be guilty OF
the larceny unless he was there. Crime consisted
OF act and intention. There must be the evil pur-
pose. Every man was responsible for his own
crimes only. Applying these principles to this case
the court assumed that
THE THIEVES CANE HERE ON THE INVITATION OF
FLlNDER-
he did not mean to say the evidence established the
fact-and Finder told them that they might have
chance to rob the Treasury. II the Treasury
had been robbed Finder would have been guilty as
an accessory before the fact. II they had stolen
money from the Treasury and Finder had made an
reward for restoring the money, morally
Flinders crime would have been OF the baSeSt kind