National Republican., 1885-06-06

tlon. when they were asked TO lay down tho
and 70 testify from their recollection
whether we had presented this paper
whether this paper had over been presented
or not presented 10 them for pdyment-they
said that they could not say. Mr.. Walker also
made this statements:
80. DO you know the handwriting OF the
body OF this Instrument
You recollecl that he was asked about the
handwriting, and he aworc that " was Carri-
gan or Kirkwood-sworo that IL was not
Drcw'5
"a. No, sir; I do not. II Is tho handwriting
that the vouchers usually came in"
20. Is 1t not the handwriting of Mr.. DrewY'
"a. No. SIR"
District Attorney worihington. What are
you speaking OFF,
"a. Drew No l."
That Is, this bill
90. so that the only writing. upon that
paper which you Identified as MT. Drew Is
the signature 70 the recciptY'
"a. That is all"
20. And tho receipt was signed rs you 70.
marked, in blank, and filed up afterwardY'
80. Now, il that should be one OF the pieces
Of paper that came up to your otice, and
check was sent to his Office in regard to IT,
then it would not be necessary for MIR. Drew 10
have appeared there at all p
"a # wonld not have been necessary"
Now, there Is the only witness you have OF
the government that undertnkesto say that he
paid anything upon this piece OF paper. Ho
v
or carried two checks at least that he recOl-
locts Of, to Mr.. Drews office and LEFT them
there for Mr.. Drew. This indictment en-
braces the two transactions. There Is no evil
dence-and you don't know that he ever had
any other but two ansnctions-is there2 That
is the evidence introduced in this case, that
he did deliver two cheeks for Two separate
transactions at the Office Of Mr. Drew, and he
says II this is ike the TWO that he did deliver,
thon IL would not be necessary for Mr.. Drew
to 10 up 70 the oihce for any purpose.
Now, let us take the first step in the trans:
action, and see how that stands In the light Of
the evidence. Did Mr.. Drew send these
goods to tho department. He swears, his en-
ployes swears, the porter swears, that he sent
a memorandum bill with each number of
goods-each shipment Of goods will not
speak now OF any conflict OF that evidence, but
will later l want 70 present as II is presented
in the evidence. Now, II there is no conflict
concerning that method OF doing business,
and Will treat OF conflict hereafter, then II
appears 10 you that the first step in the pur.
chase Of these goods by the department, OF Mr..
Drew, was the sending of an ordor-wItton
ordor-to Mr.. Drew for the goods Those orders
were filled, as all other orders were filled, and
sent to tho department., and Il memorandum
bill sent with each shipment. Now, say that
Ii that evidence is unaccompaniod with any
contradictions, and Of that will speak hore-
after, ifyou had that state OF facts before you
to pass upon, what would you find2 You
would find tlrSt that orders were sent from the
department to Mr.. Drew; you would find that
tDOSe OTucTb WeIo Illlcu DN MS ClttlCul ana
shipment force. just as he filled oil other
orders from every department and from pur-
chasers outside; you would find that when
these orders were filled the goods were
shipped to the purchasers in precisely the
method that they were shipped
to other purchasers outside of the
government Now, alter tho goods reached
the Department, what was done2 Mr.. Drew s
memorandum bill was dipenSod with, Mfr.
DrGw's memorandum bill was not preserved.
! am speaking now of tho governments evi.
denCe Thore IL no evidence before you that
the bill which Mr. Drew sent to tho Depart
lnent, which described correctly the shipment
of tho goods that he mad made TO tho Depart
ment, was preserved by the Department in
any record whatever, is there2 The evidence
witnesses here to show that they had blank
vouchers that they used in their business.
They made out three ofthem, which they called
original, Il duplicate, and a atrlplicate. Neither
DUN bill which Mr.. Drew sent TO the De-
partment, but they were three vouchers
prepared in the Department. So that j
say ii you are authorized TO believe
the witnesses before you-who were sworn be-
fore you-you certainly must be convinced OF
the iGct that every voucher that appears In
this case was voucher that was made in the
Department, by the clerical force in the De-
partment, and did not embrace any bill which
Mr. Drew sent They had their own system
of bookkeeping, they had their own system OF
keeping their accounts, and therefore they
constructed their own papers.
Now, how did Drew sign those papers? Lei
me ask you o question. If you were required
| to say on your honor that Mr., Drow signed
those papers after they were filed up, could
you say 1t? Is there any proof of that2 Coulc
| you take away mans liberty, q mans pros
| perity, could you destroy the happiness of hi,
| family on the evidence which shows he signed
| this voucher after II was filled up? If that wa
| the only thing you had to deal with, that the
| hntvill airing uItgtiDn | unnpnl a IN n
| honor to say whether you could, ON your oaIhs
| return that he signed this voucher aller II wa
filled up, or aitcr the thing was complete?
| say that you could not.
iIr. Walker testified that the habit was tC
| sign them in blauk-that Is, the receipts Now
| why sign the receipt in blank II the vouche
| was made and the exact amount fthe vouche
| was known? Why should he sign part of l
| In blank? The same reason why he wOul'
| sign part Of 1t IN blank would cover the Ell
| tire voucher. Resigned II because the VouChe
was incomplete when he signed 1t, because |
was not convenient for them to fill up the blaul
for some reason when he signed it, but after
ward IL was all filled up but the receipt.
was easy to fill up the receipt, because tha
only represented the amount Of money
Now, then supposing 1t appears instea(
that he sent up that memorandum bill q
the goods he furnished before rhey got him 4
sign in blank the vouchers which they kept
which were aiterWard filled up and sent 4
tho paymaster who took the check down {,
MIR. Drew, what occasion on earth would Nj
| Drew have TO know anything about II Mar
you 1t IL established by the government 1
this case that two checks, two vouchers o
which Mr.. Drew drew tho money which h
admits he signed, which he admits he got til
money OH, were taken down TO his office an
left there, and one of them relates with absC
Lutte certainty to this paper, this paper that wa
testified 10 as having been signed in blank b
him. So far as that Is concerned, Mr. Wake
gays that If the piece of paper and check whic
he carried down TO MIR. Drew's office is one
the two checks offered in this case, then
would not be necessary for Mr.. Drew, IN th
course of business, TO go to him again 10 sig
any vouchers. He says there Is no posslDl
necessity for Drew TO come to him, aud If
says that there Is no necessity for Drew TO go
the department, ask you as honorable me
where you could lind beyond u reasonabl
doubt that Mr.. Drew ever took this paper
Mr.. Walker You cannot find it, IL Is N
| proved as a fact in this case.
Let us take the next step In this case as H
Coyle has laid IL down, | am going to stan
upon the foundation that he has laid, and as
! you whether the government has establishe
all the propositions which he says are nece
sary, or whether they have established any
them. Now, we have rule furnished l
upon that subject in the case which Will pr
ceed to read 70 YOU. Jurles are not always
familiar with these matters us We are and
will therefore call your attention 10 them,
read from the sixteenth Federal Repor
United states Court Reports, page ll2:
| I'm criminal causes not Only u tue DurQc
upon the prosecution TO establish the guilt
d. the accused but, in order to Justify verdi
: Of guilty, the jury must be satisfied beyond
! reasonable doubt that every fact material 4
the conviction has been established
So that every fuct which enters Into this {
Tense must.be proven bolore you wilhitho san
7 cleaTness and urgency az though that ia
4 alone were involved. ls this paper false
Q What evidence is there that II IL false? No
4 | COnstrue the evidence ms strongly as you c,
Q against Mr. brow, which IL the unfair way
4 u criminal case, The rule Is 10 consIrue IL
Q strongly as 1t will bear against tho COVER
o ment. Now, look at the evidence in this ca,
/ showing whether this voucher Is false or nC
- Let us Zee what 1t IL. Is there any record
/ this property In question that shows that Il
e was lalse2 No. This piece Of paper was CO
L strucLed in the year 1853. Does the COVER
n ment keep any books showing the proper
4 that was bought In 1882 No, sweep 4
r whole circuit OF this inquiry and yon do n
Il lind single property book. Not one. ID
h you ever know business to be transacted
n that way2 Merchants keep invoices, NJ,
}, chants know what they buy and what IA