National Republican., 1885-06-06
AT1oNA1 HEPUB1to An SATURDAY NoRNTNs e. 1855


they bring the officers of the dlsponsary here
TO show that they did not receive thuse modi-
Cincs in lSS}-along through two, three four, or
live months In the year 1882 Notone of them.
Do we find that goods were brought there TO be
distributed somewherel Hudson saysso. You
find the porter, whom they bring here to dis
prove tho fact. who swears that ho took boxes
to tho dispensary, aud how could he tell what
was in th0m without lookingl
Ii aul mistaken in the evidence ask the
counsel for the government TO correct me, for
they have tho record before thom printed aud
publlshodj we are not quite able TO get II our
selves.
(Mr. worthington here stated that the testi.
mony as taken each day had not been written
out but only the testimony on behalf OF the
defense and some other that he spoclhod)
They do not think IL Is necessary to write
out anything except what they might con.
slider to be In favor of the government. They
aro like their witnesses that do not want to
see anything In favor Of the defense. want
TO see what the .goyornments witnesses say
about the method Of dong business there. L
am now talking about the testimony OF Dr.
Hudson about property coming there for dis
tributlon ana am talking about the TACT that
the porter Shaw said that he distributed some
Of IT, but ho did not know what he distributed,
and / am talking about the fact that It ia
proved here that the dispensary got the goods
mentioned ON this bill; | am talking about the
fact that they have brought nobody here from
the diSpensary who says that they did not get
these identical medicines. This is the gov
ernment testimony that lam talking about.
Now, say that II you make the ordinary
allowances for iniirmities Of n mans mind,
you cannot, at this date, say that there IL one
Item In this bill that ls false. Mr.. Drcw swenrs
positively that he could not rccolleCt the items
which he furnished. His witnesses who are
as truthful as any witnesses, swear that they
could not reoollect all tho items that Thea iur-
nished. They do recolloct certain OF them,
but they do not profess to say that they do all.
| One OF his witnesses, tho nrst that was put
| upon the stand says that when they did not
have the goods that were ordered they sent
/ nt rot 10 al
| all orders from this bureau for medicines and
drugs Drew was in the business OF a druggist,
and the government sent orders to him TO bo
| filled, and prima facle these ordcra related to
| the goods which he kept; he kept medicine and
| filed those orders and sent thom back. He
swears, and his mon swear, they filled them, but
| theycRunot rccollect the Items lThe government
has got no book in which II Keeps the items,
| that 1t has produced, aud all that we hayo
| that was made at tho date of these purchases Is
this bill which shows IN absolute terms that
defendant furnished the specific items.
| say that II had that evidence before
| any civil court, andwas suing on that bill,
would recover or get verdict at least.
he intended If he presented that bill and 1t
| was false, TO defraud the United States. Be.
fore reaching that part of the case, gentle
men, wish to say that there has been
great deal said here about the non.produc-
| ton OF books. It has been claimed by the
| government that If q citizen is put on trial,
and you cover him with suspicion so that 1t
him to give an explanation, and he docs not
furnish that explanation, then you must con-
yict him on the suspicion. The rule OF law
Is that you must be satisfied beyond rea.
sonable doubt OF every fact 1t Is necessary
to prove in order TO find n man guilty.
But my friend Worthington has discovered
and ho Is entitled to the benefits OF his disCov
| ery-a principle of criminal law that has not
been recognized in our jurisprudence since we
had government. Ho has resuscitated and
brought i forward to do service in this case,
| ha n mt ha Wit
some doubt, and that man does not explain
that doubt, then you are to solve that doubt
against him; that, though the case Of the gov
eTument is In doubt, that doubt becomes q
conviction II the defendant does not come in
| with some evidence. Now, the Supreme Court
had that very subject before 1t, and made very
| short work Of II, not long ago. Mr.. Justice
Field delivered the opinion of the court. The
counsel In this case do not say anything on the
subject-they do not present an authority
through the court, and Mr.. Coyle really did
not argue the proposition much to the Jury.
| Let us see what there Is in the propositions:
This case in tho Supreme Court was a case
whore a suit was brought for a penalty. 1t
| was not q criminal prosecution, but a suit for
q penalty, and II was shown that
the party who was sued had books
in his possession that accurately
| disclosed his business. was an accurate record
Of his business and when they got through,
the government In that case asked the court
to instruct the jury that II they believed that
the party had books which showed the records
the books, that they were authorized TO pre-
sumo that If he did produce the books that
they would have convicted MIN, or would
have been against him. The court says that
"the defendants were present at the trial, but
were not called as witnesses. II was proved
that they kept books, consisting Of day-books,
Journals and ledgers." Mark you, that that
was not criminal suit as this IS, but we will
read what the court said upon II
"Now the court instructed the Jury that 1t
was a rule without exception, that were n
nrn
duced, would render material fact certain the
law presumes against him II he omits to pro.
duce 1t, and authorizes jury TO resolve all
doubts adversely to his defense; that although
the case must be made out against the defend
ants beyond all reasonable doubts in this case.
as well an in criminal cases, yet the course OF
the defendants may have supplied In the pro
sumptions of law, all which this stringent
rule demanded"
That IL, tho failure of the defendants to pro.
duoe their book which could have supplied
the proof which the government could not on
the other hand make, and though the govern
ment had only made what is called prima
iacie case, case of suspicion against the de-
fendant who had the books and did not intro
duce the books; then the failure OF the de-
fendant to furnish the information by pro.
ductlon of his books resolved the case of sus-
piciOn into case OF guilt beyond all reasona-
bic doubt. That is what the court below told
the jury.
Again tho Supreme Court says:
"The purport of all this was to tell the Jury
|
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt yet If the
government had made out prima facie case
against them, not one free from oil doubt but
one which diclosed circumstances requiring
explanation, and the defendants did not ex-
plain, the perplexing question OF their guilt
need not disturb the minds of the jurors; their
silence supplied In the presumptlons of the
law that fun proof which should dispel all
reasonable doubt.
1--WE do not think 1t at all necessary to 60
into any argument to show the error of this
,, statement All the authorities to condemn
1t, The instruction sets ut naught established
principles, and justltes the criticism OF couu
sci that 1t substantially withdrew from the de
: PENDANTS their constitutional right of trial by
Jury, and converted what at law was intended
for their protection-the right TO refuse tc
,, testify-into the machinery for their sure dc
struction."
/ ever since the government was formed, anC
, 1t was a principle of English law before oul
/ government was formed, that man neet
. not be required to give evidence agains
, himself Not that he should not be required
I TO testify as witness, but he should not bC
q required to give evidence OF any kind, and sc
r humane and Just is the law that 1t condemns
o any suspicious against him If he does moi
a produce evidence.
. Now, that case and this case are preclsel,
n similar, except in that case the defendant
l. did not go on the stand as witnessos here thu
!. defendant did go on as his own witness, anC
y was crosseKamined TO the fullest extent OF thu
!, government. In that case they had books
u and as the court says 1.-THE defendants wer
n present at tho trial, but were not called as wit
d ncsses. 1t was proved that they kept books
Is consisting Of day books, journals, and edgerB.
They did not produce them at the trial, al
o though the government had been unable 4
make out case, and the prosecuting attorne
to the court below procured the court to say q
the jury, that If they believed that thes
a parties had the books, and did not produc
\ them, that the presumption was that ii the
n produced thcm the books would be againl
4. Them, and the court did SO instruct the jury
The Supreme Court OF the United States siInpl
AZ SAID that Il was not worth while TO touch sue
n a proposition, which is condemned by all tn
., authorities, and that 1t is to convert u right
AZ the defendant into an instrument TO dostro
as him.
10 how absurd such a proposition is VIII