National Republican., 1885-06-06

correct, Ihat ls the governments testimony.
NOW, in doing that thero is no book or vOuch-
or kept which showst the items That this money
appropriated for except the bills which go
from the paymasier to the fourth auditor,
such ms this. All that they tell you isthat II
is only reasonable that they should have given
the items which enter into the general amount
30 that up until lately there was no book that
was kept In the Intercourse between tho
bureau Of medicine aud surgery and the
Secretary of the Navy that would show for
what property thoy expended their money.
Now Is not that true, when II leaves to the
bureau of medicine and surgery the utmost
discretion concerning what they shall yet re
is not in effect stating toaman who doals with
the bureau OF medicine and surgery that he
may deal ad llbltum without observing any
particular formula.
There Is money that was put nt their dispoaai
to be paid out on such vouchers as they them
selves constructed. Certainly the citizen s
not required TO know more than tho officers
know. That is what they undertake to charge
him with. He simply knows that tho bureau
OF medicine and surgery has its money in mass
10 pay out as they sec fit. That is II he goes
th0re with q bill, instead ofpresorying hls bill,
sends II TO the paymaster, and they set down
and construct bills OF their own, Is there any
thing unusually suspicious or wrong m his ac-
accepting the bills which they make for him
to get his money On2 Now, If there is, cali
and call II sugar-lhat is, suppose ho makes
out bill for coffee aud the party says / would
rather not keep my books In that way, but
make II out for sugar and he calls the coffee
bill sugar billSif the party asks mo to do
that and do it--where Is there eithor orimi-
nal or moral wrong. II may confuse the gov
ornments business or may confuse corpora
tion whose accounts were kept in that way,
the officers of the corporation, and the goyern-
ment Is nothing but corporation. IL is
mum hmunieipal G eorporation doing business, and yon
government officer tells you to do in seeking
payment of your debt as you have n right 70
rely upon an officer Of railway corporation,
lect a bill | say that II these vouchers are
false, which dony, they are the methods OF
the department They were signed in blank,
course of business, and the draft reached
Mr.. Drew and ho collected money on
them to pay what he had furnished the
turn out upon n more thorough inyes.
tigation that the articles that he furnished the
government were identical with those articles
in this paper in the amounts which the gov
ernment owed him, that the amount that the
government owed him was identical with the
amount that he collected, could there be any
intent TO delraud the United States, and tho
government tells you that there must be an ln-
tent to defraud the government aud that in
tent must be proved by facts other than that
the voucher was false, and that he collected 1t
knowing that 1t was false. There must be out.
side of the three propositions that the voucher
was false. was presented for payment, was
which oyerrides ali of them, and that e that
he did II with intent to defraud the United
States; Now, Isay that they have not proved
that at all.
They have satisfied you It seems to me, that
John w. Drew did have bona fide dealings
with the department That may be found In
the testimony that they have introduced. Mr..
Coyle states in closing his argument that one
of the darkest crimes that Drew would have
to answer for was his inducemont to these
young men to commit perlnry. Why did he
in his own conscience that unless he conld de-
stroy the evidence ofthoEo young men his case
was gone. No man attacks a great array of
witnesses unless the necessities of his case
drives him to 1t.
And when the government stands here and
charges five disinterested and apparently
honest and intelligent men with committing a
perjury without q motive, they proclaim to
you, gentlemen, that If you don't believe that
they have committed perjury their case is
gone. That is the logic OF his action, but he
refuted that himself IN the very next breath.
Mr.. Coyle felt that he was straining mis- argu-
ment, that II was not one that was justified by
tho case, and therefore he told you in the next
breath, If had my notes would read 1t to
you, that John w. Drew would not do an In
Justice to any of his fellow citizens, but that
| there was different code of morals in the
government than that recognized In
dealing with their fellow citizens. After
telling you that these young men had COM
mitted perjury at the solicitation of Drew, he
then tells you that Drew is incapable, In his
| Judgment, even now of doing wrong to his
| fellow man What greater wrong is there than
further, and want tho full benefit Of that. that,
that John w. Drew would not injure his
| fellow-man, but that he deals with the govern
ment under Il different code of morals from
which no deals with his fellow-man. That is,
he in fact tells you that unless there is some
evidence that he does have a different code OF
morals between the government and himself
than the code he has between himself and his
fellow-man, he has made no case. 1 cannot
conceive how n man with his nature, with an
honest nature, could divide his nature into
two parts-on the one side in his dealings
righteous absolutely pure, and honest, and on
the other trickery and fraud. II is not right to
cheat the government, He certainly could
not mean that Drew could stand here and say
that 1t was right to cheat the United States
any more than 1t would DO to cheat his fellow
man
In this controversy after the evidence Is
heard under the indictment, and when he
speaks of the character of the defendant Mr..
| Coyle tells YOU that John w. Drew is incapa-
bic of wronging his follow man. j never have
hoard of finer eulogy OF man In my life.
when prosecuting officer at the close OF
case which ID earnestly prosecuted, after he
| has given to every circumstance he can. the
fullest color of suspicion tells the jury that he
| is seeking TO convict tho defendant, who in
| his mind, is incapable of doing any man
wrong. What contradiction of termsl Con-
| vict such man, gentlemen You cannot
| find II Ill your hearts TO do SO.
| Now, there is ono word more, and will
| leave the case with you. think asked YOU
| to weigh this evidence only upon some legal
| principle. Drew proved an excellent charac-
| ter. Now, what Is the legal effect OF that?
| You are not to settle this case upon any transit
| tory principle, or any one of your own. but
| You are TO settle 1t upon the stable foundations
| of the law. You are to determine how the law
| intcrprets certain things ana you may get all
| the aid you can from the books and from the
| record. When you have so settled IL you have
gratlfed the law and your own conscience.
| Now, the law speaks of character; justlet me
| read to yon what IL is: "A character such ~
that OF Mr.. Wilberforce, for instance If of
| fered on the part of n defendant charged with
larceny would cast reasonable doubt on any,
prosecution. no matter how strong the case
might be. And then In addition, us is sub
stantially argued by Talfourd, j., 1t is retitio
principH, to say that evidence as to character
Is entitled to weight only in doubtful cases
when really 1t is TO make the case doubtful
that such evidence is offered. In some in
stances in which guilt would otherwise be
established beyond reasonable doubt, evil
dence ofgood character may justly produce an
acquittal. In other cases It may be inoperai
tive, but In all cases 1t Is an item OF proof to be
considered by the jury"
Now, then, even though Drew had offered
no evidence about his character and you were
In doubt, or II you were inclined to lind against
him in the absence OF such evidence. the legal
force of that evidence is to sometimes acquit.
Parties may undertake to prove u good charac-
ter and fail. They may attempt to prove a.
good character and only prove an indiferent
one But where man has established, as in
this case, by the best witnesses that can bo
procured, the most intelligent and most rel
liable men, the character that Mr.. Drew hasl
and In addition TO that the government oiiers
no evidence in rebuttal, but declares To YOU
that they will sign any certificate of char
acter of the party, this character is before tho
Jury in such force and strength that 1t has, y
think, this legal effect, which ia, that itmayl
be sufficient to acquit alone without any othe
| evidence, even in the absence OF any evidence,
upon every disputed fact In our favor. If we
had TO sit here absolutely destitute of evidence,
and you had listened only 10 the governments
statement and we had proved so excellent q
character for the defendant as We have proved
under the law, you are bound to give II Its full
force
II Is inconsistent with your experience thai
an honest upright man among his neighborl
will cheat When man has lived In the lif,
OF one community for thirty years, they have
had an opportunity TO observe his public con
duct and II at the end Of that thirty years h.